Et Religio

Gandhi and Wall Street

2011-10-01T19:55:00.000-07:00

Gandhi Statue, Union Plaza, New York City. Picture by author.

While skimming the news and Facebook updates, I came across some word that the Occupy Wall Street protesters had successfully blocked traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge. NYPD police officers have been arresting protesters who have taken the street and have reportedly, according to the link above, taken approximately 400 protesters into custody.

While reading the articles and updates about Occupy Wall Street, I experienced mixed emotions. On one level, it is refreshing to see actual mobilization for a cause. I've been harping in recent years that I feel as though Millenials, like myself, are incapable of actual physical protest. We forward articles and tweet as much as we want, but when it calls for showing up we go back to our laptops at home. (Rest assured, I am criticizing myself here)

On another level, I am frustrated with the media coverage of the whole procession. Although the New York Times had a report on the events of today, for the most part the media has been altogether silent about Occupy Wall Street the past few weeks. This is surprising, especially given how "liberal" the media is usually attributed to be.

On a third level, I am confused. What, exactly, is it that the protesters want? I see signs for anarchy, signs for the jailing of Wall Street fat cats, for government to absolve all education loans, etc. I'm not quite sure if there is just one purpose to the protest, and I'm not quite sure if that is a good or bad thing. As a close friend of mine said, sometimes it's just good to see the anger, to see how many people are pissed off. But I wonder if this is enough.

The mass incarcerations of today immediately reminded me of Gandhi and his tactic of overpopulating the jails. Indeed, incarceration became an integral part of his nonviolent movement ever since he burned his identity card in front of police officers in South Africa.

These images were juxtaposed, however, with a quote from an article in The Guardian several months ago in which Booker prize-winning Arundhati Roy stopped condemning violent action, saying that "Non-violence is a piece of theatre. You need an audience." Gandhi was not ignorant of this, and he employed the media in every satyagraha campaign he initiated. With twitter, social media, and even a live stream of the events, the Occupy Wall Street protest definitely has an audience and media presence (albeit a primarily grassroots one); it has been able to be witnessed from beginning to end. So powerful is this constant coverage that it was even conducive to beginning an investigation against Anthony Bologna, the NYPD officer now accused of infringing of civil rights (he's the pepper-spraying guy).

So basically, Occupy Wall Street has the audience and it has the media. But I argue that it is missing the key integral part of nonviolent resistance that Gandhi emphasized over and above everything else:

the key of education and articulation of clear goals and demands.

Before a satyagraha campaign, Gandhi would "train" his "troops" (he used a lot of warfare analogies) by holding large rallies in which he would educate the participants in the details of the platform: why it was being conducted, who was involved, what to expect, how to respond, etc. Having very clear demands was absolutely essential to all of this. Indeed, the satyagraha campaign would not move forward without it.

So Occupy Wall Street: where is your education and articulation? Is it just about tax increases on the rich? Or is it about loans and debt? Or is it about jobs? Pick something, be clear, and move forward. It might be a missing element in making this just a little more history-making.

Documentary on Gene Sharp and Nonviolent Resistance

2011-09-15T12:18:00.000-07:00

A new documentary about Gene Sharp and his writings on nonviolent resistance has been produced and will be presented in Boston and other major cities.

I had the wonderful opportunity to take a seminar with Diana Eck titled "Gandhi: Then, and Now." Taking a seminar with Prof. Eck is incredible in itself (her courses are highly attended and difficult to get into), but the topic also was profound. I had wanted to study Gandhi in detail for years ever since I encountered whispers of his ideology and beliefs in my American History class in high school. His face adorned many a college poster in undergrad, his quotes popped up in numerous e-mail signatures, but the man and his writings eluded me.

I finally delved into Gandhi with this course and came away with conflicted feelings (to be saved for another post) on satyagraha, Gandhi himself, and the usefulness of nonviolent resistance.

In one course, however, we had the very special pleasure to be taught by a certain Gene Sharp, "the most important man you've never heard of." Writing on nonviolent resistance for decades, Sharp (who founded the Albert Einstein Institute) has produced many pamphlets and writings that have been integral in nonviolent uprisings all over the world. One in particular, From Dictatorship to Democracy, is illegal in many nations and has been translated into 26 languages (all of which can be downloaded for free as a .pdf).

Integral to Sharp's thought is the belief that power can only be used with the consent of the populace. If people decide to resist power (indeed, even ridicule power), cracks can successfully be created that allow for the eventual crumble of oppressive regimes. His writings are short, yet powerful, and altogether useful.

I highly recommend this documentary to anybody who is in a city where it is showing. I have had the pleasure of hearing him speak twice now and have found him to be chillingly brilliant, a man who responds directly and simply (a trait that I find refreshing). I have not seen the documentary as of yet; I am so sad to have missed its opening by a few months. But hopefully I can get a copy at some point in the future!

Why the nonreligious are not, in fact, religious

2011-09-14T09:41:00.000-07:00

It has been several months since I last posted something, mainly due to the long summer break and the transition from Boston to Miami to Princeton. Add to that a heap of nephews and nieces to babysit, and you have yourself a recipe for lack of time to blog.

In any case, excuses notwithstanding, I am back and ready to post on some meandering thoughts I have had.

The title for this post might sound odd, but let me explain. I often find in my day-to-day experiences that one of the most frustrating things that can be said to a nonreligious person is that they are, in fact, religious. Maybe an anonymous Christian (a la Rahner)? Or it could be said to the person in a way that is slightly condescending: the good works you perform could not have arisen from your nonreligiosity. You are, in fact, religious (read: Christian) and you do not know it. The pursuit of truth is actually a pursuit of god. Time spent alone in silent meditation is actually prayer.

These are simple examples, but they point out a very profound cultural and sociological conundrum for the nonreligious in the United States. In an environment so profoundly religious (and predominantly Christian), where can the nonreligious turn to find the nonreligious language, description, etc?

I come to this because of some recent readings that have sparked my interest. The first is a piece by the sociologist of culture Stephen Vaisey titled "Motivation and Justification: A Dual-Process Model of Culture in Action."* Vaisey just left UC Berkeley for a professorship at Duke. In this piece, Vaisey explicates the two main models that have come to represent a bulk of the research on the sociology of culture: one that views culture as a motivation for action, and on that views culture as a justification for action.

Although simplifying an academic's work is often dangerous, let me just give a few words on the difference. If culture is motivational, then it is implied that people perform certain actions and act in certain ways depending upon a set of cultural norms that have been assimilated by the person. To view culture as justification, on the other hand, means that individuals perform actions and only look back to culture after the fact in order to explain why they acted the way they did.

In the piece, Vaisey addresses mainly the 1986 article by Ann Swidler, "Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies."** In this piece (and in her book, Talk of Love), Swidler details how individuals often perform actions that contradict their cultural assertions, what one would imagine would be the cultural motivations for their actions. Swidler is surprised by the contradictions; Vaisey seeks to explicate why we should not be surprised.

More importantly for me, however, is Swidler's use of the idea of a cultural "tool kit," one that is drawn from as needed and employed when required.

Reading these two pieces made me think a little bit more about the frustrations that the nonreligious may feel. When the cultural tool kit in the United States is religious in general, Christian in particular, from where can the nonreligious draw her/his cultural language while remaining somewhat "true" to her/his nonreligiosity? How do the nonreligious tweak, amend, or altogether abandon the cultural tool kit in both the motivational and justificatory aspects of cultural use?

Just a thought for the time being. Apologies for the long post.

----------
* Stephen Vaisey. 2009. "Motivation and Justification: A Dual-Process Model of Culture in Action." American Journal of Sociology 114: 1675-1715.

** Ann Swidler. 1986. "Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies." American Sociological Review 51: 273-86.

The Lives of Nones and the People who Study Them

2011-05-30T16:50:00.001-07:00

I was invited to give the May luncheon lecture for the Massachusetts Bible Society a few days ago. It was another wonderful experience; I always enjoy reuniting with the folks there and was looking forward to this talk for days. I provide the video here. And please leave comments!

Martin Marty's note to Paul Tillich

2011-05-07T10:31:00.000-07:00

A very serendipitous encounter. My copy of "Varieties of Unbelief" by Martin Marty from Andover-Harvard Theological Library has (1) a book plate that states "Ex Libris: Paul Johannes Tillich," and (2) an incredible note from Martin Marty himself to Tillich which reads:

"To Prof Tillich: With gratitude and in acknowledgement of my debt to your life work, a debt which -- alas! -- my own writing never sufficiently reveals! See pg. 164f. & 202-204.

Signed, Martin Marty, Swift Hall, 1964."

Holy crap this is cool.

Jus Post Bellum

2011-05-04T07:10:00.000-07:00

Does it make sense to consider the morality of ending and exiting warfare?

This semester, I had the wonderful opportunity to take Prof. Hehir's "Politics and Ethics of the Use of Force" course jointly offered in the Kennedy School of Government and the Divinity School. Overall, the course taught on the history and application of Just War Theory (JWT) both historically and presently.

In its simplest (and I do mean simplest) form, JWT is comprised of two elements with a couple stipulations with each one. These are jus ad bellum (the morality of going to war) and jus in bello (the morality within warfare). Within these two are the principles of:

1. Just cause. One can (1) take life to defend life, (2) take life to prevent large-scale, systematic taking of life, and/or (3) take life to overcome a regime that oppresses life.

2. Proper authority. War can only be called by those in charge of nation-states.

3. Right intention. War cannot be enacted, for instance, to inflict revenge or obliterate a nation.

4. Last resort. War cannot be called unless it is absolutely necessary.

5. Moral possibility for success. Would warfare be feasible and successful?

6. Proportionality for war as a whole. Do not fight a war that causes more harm than that which you sought to overcome.

7. Noncombatant immunity. Civilians must never be targeted.

and finally

8. Proportionality in warfare. The use of arms must be proportional to the goals sought.

These eight principles have guided JWT for centuries since St. Augustine put pen down to paper. It has been only recently, however, that there has been a call from within the ethics and military community for a jus post bellum (JPB), a just end to a war. If the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught the international community anything, it is this: a terrible exit from war has both unethical and strategic consequences. Leaving a location before peace has been restored may leave a nation worse off than it was before.

What is more, this insecurity can serve to breed unrest that could instigate future warfare. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have had two phases. Other examples (such as the Treaty of Versailles that led to World War II or the terms of surrender for Japan by the U.S. that led to the dropping of two atomic bombs) come up as indicators of a need for a JPB.

So what does an ethical exit look like? And is it useful?

JPB is the topic of my final paper for the class, and I thought I'd just share some of the ideas that have been in my head as a result.

The earliest consideration for a JPB in the ethics literature in the U.S. and Western Europe comes from 1994. Although one of the big shots of JPB, Brian Orend, sees links going all the way back to Kant*, most of the authors on the topic cite literature that only spans the last two decades. In writing my paper, I found this absolutely incredible. JPB is an academic newborn, an idea that is still in diapers and learning to avoid the corners of coffee tables. How wonderful to encounter a topic still in an inchoate state!

Overall, the main principles have been best articulated by Orend in the book cited above. They include:

1. Just cause for termination. You have to have met the goals you sought out to reach.

2. Right intention. The exit must not contain punitive acts or those of revenge.

3. Public and legitimate. The end of war must be publicly announced by legitimate authorities involved.

4. Discrimination. Differentiate between political and military leaders, soldiers and civilians, in adjudicating post-war justice (which includes both monetary payments and war-crimes trials).

5. Proportionality. Terms of surrender, for instance, cannot be unconditional. And the human rights of fought nation must be respected.

Within all these principles are the practical realities of what they require. Reconstruction, for instance, both urban and political, is a necessary result of JPB. Celebrations are allowed, but they must follow right intention: the celebration of the end of warfare that also contains the conscious weight of the lives lost on both sides is different from celebrating the fall of another nation. Post-war cleanup of devices used during warfare (such as mines) is another requirement.

The authors I read gave insightful considerations for a JPB, but overall JPB remains an under-taught aspect of JWT. This is partly, of course, due to the fledgling nature of JPB. But could a robust JPB be useful both for ethicists and politicians in articulating or defining the principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello in a clearer light? Here are some thoughts:

1. A strong JPB can help limit warfare. War is a blunt instrument for politics. It takes a lot of money, a lot of lives, and a lot of time. What is more, it takes all three of these aspects well beyond the original measurements expected going into war. Thinking about our responsibilities after war, therefore, can give new meaning to the requirements of going to war and acting in war.

2. JPB can round out JWT. As it stands, JWT talks about the beginning and middle of warfare. But war has three parts: beginning, middle, and end. Why not have a clear look at all three aspects?

3. JPB can help preserve peace. Sometimes a good exit strategy can leave all nations better off than before. The goal is NOT to go to the status quo ante, which brought warfare in the first place. The goal is to leave all nations in better conditions so as to prevent future warfare.

There are, as well, some problems.

1. JPB can limit warfare where it's needed. Would a robust JPB actually inhibit intervention, for instance? Could JPB lead nations to reconsider actin in cases of internal strife? In effect, could a JPB lead to more Rwandas in the world?

2. Terrorism and alternate warfare. JPB in its present articulation views warfare in classic aggressor v defender terms. But what about non-state actors, such as terrorists? Does JPB require a defending nation to rebuild the country within which terrorists are hiding (especially if there are questions as to the complicity or relationship between the nation and the terrorist organization)?

3. When to call it quits. Peace is a finicky and difficult goal to achieve. At what point are reconstruction efforts completed? How far must one pursue war-crimes trials at the expense of peace? What, in short, are the practical limits for idealist outcomes?

Thank you for reading thus far. These are just some of the points that I have been considering, but I would love to hear your thoughts on the following questions:

Is there a necessity for jus post bellum, or is Just War Theory better of without it?

What parts are missing from the current jus post bellum?

What other problems might a jus post bellum pose, both ethically and practically?

------------

* Brian Orend, War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective (Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000).

Revamping Religious Studies

2011-04-24T16:25:00.001-07:00

I have been meaning to write this post for quite some time. I have been thinking about the pedagogy of religious studies and how professors can incorporate new technologies into their classroom that would allow students to actively incorporate their knowledge from class into the outside world. They are quick and easy ways to answer the questions like, "When will I ever use this," or "How is this relevant?"

These are some ideas that might help add a practical element to courses, that can encourage students to become excited about the content of courses, and can serve to beef up conversations in class. They also take advantage of the increasingly digitized world and, gasp!, brings to the fore the public uses of academic inquiry. Here are three ideas.

1. Wikipedia

Yes, I said it. Wikipedia. Before you scoff off and walk away from your computer, hear me out. I remember Mark Goodacre, a former professor of mine, telling his podcast listeners that he encourages his students to not cite Wikipedia, but rather to write Wikipedia.

Now there's an idea. A new kind of assignment: take a Wikipedia article or two on a term/topic that has been covered over the semester and make it better! Keep track of the page changes over time (maybe go back every week and keep track of changes), add citations, fix up broken or missing links, add more substance, etc. Not only would it be a great way to make sure you get your facts right (since the student would present all her/his changes to the professor), but many other people would benefit from these changes.

I think we should all admit: Wikipedia is amazing. As a quick source for an initial glance at a topic, it can be incredibly helpful. And as a start for research papers, it can come in handy. If college students around the country took to making Wikipedia better, with the helpful gaze of professors behind the scenes, imagine how much more robust Wikipedia could be!

2. GoogleReader

Back in undergrad, I remember that students in the introduction to economics class were required to remain abreast of the news in the Wall Street Journal. Although students were not required to purchase the actual paper (since copies were available for free in the library, etc), they were required to read and know content from its pages. Quizzes were given on a weekly basis on big news stories. Other courses, especially in the public policy department, had similar requirements.

Why can't religious studies have something similar?

There are numerous websites dedicated to religion news. In fact, the Religion News Service has it's daily "Religion News Roundup" that it can shoot to you e-mail inbox, for free, every day. But what is more, using GoogleReader (the screenshot of mine is above) you can keep track of all the major news sources and their religion sections. Everyday, you can check the new stories and see which are the big ones that multiple news agencies are covering. At the end of the week, professors can give short quizzes on these subjects.

It is amazing how often I find commonalities between religion news and the subjects I am taking at the moment. And if all the students are at least hearing about the headlines, it could contribute greatly to class discussion, etc. Not to mention, this could increase religious literacy and help connect the classroom to the public sphere. What we need in religious studies is more applicability, more relevance. What we learn is fascinating and worthwhile. But it is also incredibly, vastly, and urgently important.

3. Write and publish

Quickly behind the heels of #2 is the idea of encouraging students to actually write for one of these news outlets. The Washington Post's On Religion is a great starting point. At the last conference of the American Academy of Religion in Atlanta, GA, Sally Quinn spoke on a panel for the Religion and Public Sphere group. She was adamant that good articles would get published. All one had to do was (1) write it and (2) submit it. Easy as that!

The task: Ask students to write an op-ed, or to attend a particular event and report on it. Give the guidelines that real journalists follow: AP style writing, word limits, vocab limits, etc. It is a different kind of writing from the essays that we write in class, but it can be a great exercise in being succinct, clear, and applicable. Trust me: this is hard at first but gets easier over time.

This can also encourage professors to become active in the public sphere, something that I am consistently pushing for. For indeed, the first step to encouraging students to write for the public sphere is to know the means and methods for such writing. What is more, professors can find multiple news outlets that might publish a student's work. Newspapers are strapped for cash: how excited would they be to receive free writing? And these publications can then go into the student's resume!

-----

These are merely some ideas, but add more in the comments section if/when you think of them!

From Satan to Hume

2011-04-19T04:55:00.001-07:00

The Graduate Journal of Harvard Divinity School, Cult/ure, has published a short piece of mine in their latest issue. Feel free to take a look and leave any feedback!

García, Alfredo. "From Satan to Hume: The Secularization of Suicide in England and the Reaction from the Pulpit." Cult/ure 6 (Spring 2011).

Link here.

Moderate voices in media

2011-03-14T17:14:00.000-07:00

Last Monday, I moderated a panel on religion and the public sphere at school. I ran things a bit differently than most panels, however. Instead of a Q&A session where people stand up and talk into a mic, I asked the attendees to write down their questions on little slips of paper. Two runners would grab the questions and then bring them to me at the front, at which point I would be able to throw the questions out when relevant to the conversation. It helped to keep things going by making sure the questions flowed with the conversation.

One of the most popular questions, however, had to do with the media and the moderate religious voice. Too many publications focus on the Pat Robertsons, the Jerry Falwells, and the Terry Joneses of this world: why is it that the moderate religious voices, the people who are committed to interfaith dialogue, to conversation, to dialogue, are not getting their time in the media?

Answers were given and responses arose, but at the end of everything I found myself wondering:

Is it the media's fault for not covering it, or our fault for not reading it?

I can see a little bit of both sides. While I worked at Religion News Service, I learned the age-old adage of reporters: "A dog bites a man: that's not news. A man bites a dog: now there's a story." In the world of religion, it is somewhat similar. A minister said that things are not as clear as they seem? A sarcastic "wow" would be a correct response. A Jewish group condemns the Glenn Beck? A serious story, yes. But news? Probably not. There are tons of groups who condemn Glenn Beck. Or a Christian minister who says that Terry Jones is a nutcase. Well, duh.

Now what if that Jewish group turned to the poetic form of a haiku to express their distaste...and then made a website where people could write their own haikus...and then ended up collecting over one thousand haikus? Well then, there you have a story.

Or how about if that minister publicly denounced Terry Jones...and then took up a collection to donate two Korans for every one that he burns? Now that's printable.

So on one side, there is my argument that the moderate voice needs to learn how to work the game, if you will. Media has to sell, especially in a world like today where the printed word is losing its monetary value. "Dialogue" and "complication" just does not sell. But ingenuity does. Savviness does. Cleverness does.

On the other side, however, there is the onus that I place on the actors in the media: the reporters, the bloggers, and the broadcasters. Pat Robertson is not the paragon of Christian faith in the United States no matter how loud his proponents may be. And when things are actually complicated, it is a part of responsible journalism to bring that complication to the fore. It cannot be hidden in the 17th paragraph, or under a misleading headline. In effect, certain things can be written to be sexy, to be media-appealing. How about authors try that as well?

Religious America, Secular Media

2011-03-04T04:07:00.001-08:00

Please join me for a panel discussion this Monday, March 7, 2011, on religion and the public sphere. Panelists include:

Kevin Eckstrom, Head Editor of Religion News Service

Anne Robertson, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Bible Society

Terry Donilon, Communications Director for the Archdiocese of Boston

César Baldelomar, Master's Candidate at Harvard Divinity School; contributor to Sojourners and God's Politics Blog

Information on the panel can be found here.

Disclaimer

2011-02-25T04:46:00.000-08:00

I remember reading Gandhi's "to the reader" section in his Hind Swaraj and thinking to myself how nice it would be if I could include this in any paper I write for class:

"In my search after Truth I have discarded many ideas and learnt many new things...., therefore, when anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in my sanity, he would do well to choose the later of the two on the same subject."

If I'm inconsistent, then just check the latest thing I wrote. And if it doesn't match the previous things I wrote, then don't worry: you are witnessing the evolution of my thought process. Gandhi was never so worried about being consistent, something that bothered (and continues to annoy) many readers of Gandhi. But you must admit: that's an amusing way to open up his tract on liberation.

When Nonviolence?

2011-02-21T14:53:00.000-08:00

Oh Gandhi. Oh MLK, Jr. Oh Aung San Suu Kyi. How I've looked up to you all and then some. Using nonviolent means to resist and, for the most part, successfully achieve the results of liberation, democracy, civil rights, etc., you all have become the exemplars of my favorite type of change: the nonviolent means of sticking-it-to-the-man. But are your ways always applicable?

Last semester I took a course a course on Gandhi with Professor Diana Eck. Most students here at Harvard would relish at the thought of merely taking a course with her. I had, however, the wonderful luck of taking this course as a seminar with her, a seminar that had not been offered in approximately a decade. As a Gandhi enthusiast, I couldn't have asked for more. However, reading Gandhi's own writings, biographies on Gandhi, and then examining current applications of Gandhian theory all made me wonder about that ever-present annoyance: how practical is this all?

I held steadfast the whole semester, of course, that Gandhi's means of nonviolence via satyagraha were entirely practical and useful. Self-suffering, courage, discipline: these are obvious traits for a correct insurrection.

But then I read Gandhi's letters to the Jews during the Holocaust. In Harijan on 26 November 1938, Gandhi counseled the Jews to take after his own methods of self-suffering:

"If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can." *

The letter continues in what I can only call a chilling and disturbing way. Lay down, he seems to say. Allow them to eliminate all those that they wish to eliminate, for even the German must reach a point in which s/he realizes the level of commitment that you possess.

It was incredibly difficult to read this counsel with the historical hindsight that we now possess regarding World War II, the Holocaust, and Hitler. I must grant that Gandhi may or may not have possessed the full extent of the details about the persecution of the Jews. For his words in this counsel clearly align the travails of the Jews in Germany with those of the Indians under British rule. That said, however, there is still the shocking realization that this document offers: what if the Jews had taken a Gandhian route? Well, I'm sure that all seven of you readers of this blog are probably in agreement of what the outcome would have been, counter-factual notwithstanding.

Flash forward to this semester. After all this nonviolence talk in the Divinity School, I decided to head over to the Kennedy School for a course titled "The Politics and Ethics of the Use of Force" with Fr. Bryan Hehir. An expert on Just War Theory, Fr. Hehir has been teaching this course every spring for several years. So jumping into this course, I have had to confront the arguments for the just employment of force, as Fr. Hehir puts it: the conscious, deliberate, and strategic killing of human life. From Augustine to Aquinas to the Treaty of Westphalia to the United Nations, from the early Christian church to nuclear weapons, this course tries to tackle the normative argument on the use of force while simultaneously bringing historical context into play.

So where do I stand now? Both Eck and Hehir have put excellent arguments to the fore. Both have instructed me on what could be considered somewhat antipodes of political/social aggression. When I look at myself in the mirror, can I say that I am truly a Gandhian? Or must I contend that Augustine had something going.

This is a preliminary thought that I wish to provide here, and I'm sure that (like most things I encounter) I am not the first one to think of this, nor am I the most eloquent in articulating this position. Basically, I am feeling these days as though nonviolent resistance can be effective, but only in a situation in which there is a kind of social contract in existence between the actors in play. Nonviolent resistance can be useful, but probably only when those in power have certain responsibilities for those that they power over, when the foundation of sand that is the populace is that which upholds the skyscraper of hierarchical power.

With Gandhi, it was the British government that held its power with the general consent of the multitude of its subjects. With MLK, the American government had certain responsibilities vis-a-vis its citizens (no matter how long it took to actually realize this). But in Germany, Jews became seen as non-citizens, as foreigners in their own land. There was no social contract, no responsibilities for their lives. In interstate conflict, one nation-state does not have any real responsibilities for the other. Indeed, an argument can be made that in an increasingly globalized and globalizing world, nations rely on each other for resources and economics, but ultimately no nation possesses a kind of social contract with the citizens of another nation. And this is where Just War comes into play.

All of this has come to a boil in my mind because of the many recent news stories on similar topics: Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, etc. One New York Times article talks about the Egyptian uprising and the link it has to Gene Sharp, one of the most articulate voices for nonviolent resistance in the U.S. for the past several decades. The article describes, however, the mantra that Mr. Ghonim of Google gave to his readers on Facebook: "He repeatedly hammered home a simple message: 'This is your country; a government official is your employee who gets his salary from your tax money, and you have your rights.'" Yes indeed: there is a social contract in effect. They have breached said social contract. Therefore, rebellion must occur, most practically in the form of a nonviolent resistance.

These are just some thoughts that are, of course, still in motion. Feel free to dissect, but leave the deep surgery for any longer piece that might come of this idea. In the meantime, it lies in an inchoate state. Comments are welcomed, however, and greatly appreciated.

------

*Chada, Yogesh. Gandhi: A Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997: 363.

Press Release: Harvard Picks New Sci/Rel Professor

2011-02-11T13:30:00.001-08:00

Back in April, I posted a note about a junior position in science and religion here at Harvard Divinity School. I am happy to announce that the official press release has gone out. Ahmed Ragab will become the first Richard T. Watson Assistant Professor of Science and Religion at Harvard Divinity School. From the press release:

Ragab was a visiting lecturer at Harvard Divinity School for the 2009 fall semester, and since 2008 he has been a postdoctoral fellow then lecturer in the Department of the History of Science at Harvard. He holds a medical degree from Cairo University and a doctorate in the history of science from the Ecole Pratiques des Hautes Etudes in Paris.

Helping out through this process was quite a treat for me. I am thrilled to see Dr. Ragab join the faculty at HDS and am excited for the students who will be able to take courses with him in the near future. He has let me know about how excited he is to implement courses he has had in the works. Future students at HDS will be very lucky to have him!

That's "Blessed" Pope John Paul II to you, buddy

2011-01-06T07:29:00.000-08:00

Looks like a miracle attributed to Pope John Paul II may soon be confirmed by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. CNN's Belief Blog reports that JPII allegedly healed a nun of Parkinson's Disease after the nuns in the order prayed to him after his death in 2005.

It is interesting to note that all of this is taking place so quickly. CNN's post makes the whole canonization process sound like it would be done within the next year. In reality, however, the confirmation of the miracle and the mass for JPII's eventual beatification won't even take place until close to the end of 2011. The first step is for a person to be dead for at least 5 years. JPII just barely makes that cut-off, but I would argue that his charisma, huge following, and universal positive image probably contributed to the nearly "immediate" look into his sainthood. The other steps of being considered, which requires an investigation into the life of the individual and the request of intercessions, were probably also easily overcome in his instance.

If accepted, JPII will become "Blessed", which means that one miracle has been confirmed in his name. If another miracle takes place over the course of the next few years, he will then become Saint JPII. My prediction: it won't take long to attribute another miracle to JPII.

Nonreligious Christmas Break!

2010-12-20T13:47:00.000-08:00

Ah, it feels good to return to writing. After a semester full of coursework, PhD applications, and a new job helping manage the pub on campus, I am greatly enjoying this time here at home with little to do and lots of family to hang out with. So hello once again, and apologies for my absence.

One thing that I have noticed recently is the preponderance of the non-religious/religious friction in the media that I have either stumbled upon or people have sent me. There was the NPR segment on agnostic holidays that a friend pointed me to, the holiday message from outspoken atheist Rickie Gervais that a friend posted on my Facebook wall, and a note by Stephen Prothero over on the CNN Belief Blog about new research data that links religious cities with high rates of violence.

None of this is really startling, of course. Every December, it seems as though the prevalence of writing on atheists and other nonbelievers rises in the media. The creche wars, for instance, are a media favorite. What the President says in his holiday address is another. Indeed, this is the time of the year for Americans to re-encounter their uneasy divisions between politically correct and genuinely honest. Part of that genuine honesty, however, is the general-suspicion-to-outright-dislike of anybody nonreligious.

One of the things that I have noticed from recent articles and campaigns, however, is the push to present evidence that the nonreligious are, indeed, quite nice people. And what is more, religious people are not as nice as we all think they are. Gervais mentioned it: "75 percent of Americans are God-fearing Christians; 75 percent of prisoners are God-fearing Christians. 10 Percent of Americans are atheists; 0.2 percent of prisoners are atheists." I'm not too sure where he got his percentages from, especially since 10 percent seems quite high for atheists in America, but the message remains: religious people do not have the monopoly on goodness and, moreover, they could learn a thing or two from atheists. Prothero's article is along the same vein, as was my post about the happiest nations in the world being the least religious.

It's this push to defend morality vis-a-vis atheology, to assert good choices with absent faith, that interests me. Is this only a recent question, or has this question been present throughout the history of unbelief in America? And if it has been a perpetual question, how have unbelievers responded? It seems today that there is a cat-and-mouse game being played between nonreligious and religious organizations, sometimes with funny outcomes (as with the bus ads in Forth Worth, Texas). And I would be inclined to argue that this cat-and-mouse game actually benefits both parties involved. For some religious organizations, the "battling" of atheists can seem like a rallying cry that would help solidify a congregation. (This has, in fact, been common throughout the history of unbelief in America. See Martin Marty's book The Infidel for more) For nonreligious organizations, the ire that these actions create could lend credence to the sizable minority in the US. Take heed, these acts are mere harbingers of something bigger.

All in all, I've enjoyed watching these battles play out in the media and in thinking about what they mean for the larger world of the unbeliever in America. As the rate of "Nones" increases, I find myself wondering what the life of a "None" looks like. Where do nonreligious families or parents turn for the ethical/moral training of their children? What social options are available for nonreligious families who wish to continue having ties to a greater community? And how persuasive is this image of the "ethical atheist"? Is the US ready for that?

I will be back soon

2010-09-26T07:48:00.001-07:00

...I promise. I will return as soon as I can get into a nice schedule with school, work, and PhD applications. In the meantime, enjoy this text conversation between my friend and me. It goes to show how well my friends know me:

[Me]: Are you coming to the party Saturday?

[Friend]: The chance of me missing your birthday bash equals the likelihood of disaffiliation of the oldest daughter in a conservative Protestant family who attended college in the same state of birth but different city and who calls mom weekly but is majoring in evolutionary biology (uh oh)...

[Friend]: That means yeah, definitely coming!!!

A final set of RNS blog posts

2010-08-13T13:08:00.000-07:00

Monday, 9 August, "Sounding off on the health of clergy." Some clerical administrators and professors weigh in on the overwhelming amount of data that points to the physical maladies of clergy today.

Tuesday, 10 August, "I think I'm gonna throw up (my hands to the Lord)." A song that can be interpreted in more than one way.

Wednesday, 11 August, "Of Prophets and Pancakes." Excerpts of What the Great Ate: A Curious History of Food & Fame, specifically the chapter on philosophers and religious icons.

Thursday, 12 August, "Happy...and not religious." What does it mean when three of the top five happiest nations in the world are also the least religious?

Friday, 13 August, "Evangelize and spin." Win souls over, and spin for cash.

More Blogging

2010-08-10T11:39:00.000-07:00

It's sad to say that this is my last week here at the RNS office in Washington, D.C. Hopefully this does not mean that I will stop writing for them, however. As the editor let me know upon arriving, his goal is to turn me into an "ink-stained wretch" (a.k.a.: a journalist).

Well, there's always blogging. On that note...

Tuesday, 3 August, "Liturgy and Puppets." So apparently massive puppets are becoming quite popular among mainline liturgies.....? The video is the best part.

Wednesday, 4 August, "Religion: Jedi Knight." About the growing trend of people putting "Jedi Knight" as their religious affiliation in national surveys in Canada, UK, and elsewhere.

Thursday, 5 August, "Dogs of Glory." Watch at your own risk. When worship music becomes just a bit too creepy.

Friday, 6 August, "Project Hijab." A great project by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Compilation of short videos by women around the world who talk about why they do or do not wear the head coverings.

I have friends

2010-08-05T20:04:00.000-07:00

I know I have close friends when they send me e-mails with links that tell me the following:

College degrees that don't pay:

#6: Religious studies

Median starting pay: $34,700

Mean mid-career pay: $54,400

To add insult to injury, #8 is education. That's great: the two things that I hope to combine in my future career.

Well, at least I will be happy, even if I will be poor.

Blog posts from the RNS website

2010-08-01T17:56:00.000-07:00

Monday, 26 July, "Are Catholics Losing Latin America?" Lots of news about the Catholic Church in Latin America. I failed to put in a link about Venezuela, so I apologize for that.

Tuesday, 27 July, "Michael Jackson and Jesus." A new exhibit will feature photographs that combine two of the most influential people in this world. Jesus with the King of Pop. The pictures are glorious.

Wednesday, 28 July, "July 28, 1989." A recap of Religion News Service's dispatch on this day in 1989. Two very interesting parallels to news today.

Thursday, 29 July, "Good morals start at birth." Are we born with a moral compass? New work being done in Yale takes us closer to an answer.

Friday, 30 July, "Bodies for/by Jesus." In a world where body is everything, is there a theology to working out?

Where unbelieving priests come from

2010-07-30T08:49:00.000-07:00

Dennett's latest from his work interviewing hundreds of clergy who continue to work as religious leaders even though the lost faith years ago. Haven't read it yet, but I thought I'd put it up on the blog in the meantime.

Word for the Day

2010-07-29T12:52:00.000-07:00

Psychopomp

-noun: A guide of souls, one who escorts soul of a newly-deceased to the afterlife.

From Greek psychopompos (conductor of souls), from psycho-, from psyche (breath, spirit, soul) + pompos (conductor, guide).

Quote of the Day from RNS

2010-07-29T08:30:00.000-07:00

"After Mass, I used to hug kids. No way I'm going to hug a kid now. I mean, if there's a tornado and I see a couple kids on the sidewalk as I'm driving by, too bad! Lightning, rain? Sorry, find your own way home. This is the world we live in. "

--The Rev. Tom Reese of Georgetown University, in an interview with Washingtonian magazine about the lingering effects of the clergy sex abuse scandal.

13th Century Popes and Eels

2010-07-27T12:24:00.000-07:00

"Pope Martin IV loved eels. He arranged for them to be fished out of a lake and dropped alive into a vat of wine, which killed and picked the eels. Then they were roasted and served to the pontiff.

Martin so gorged on eels that they were blamed for his death in 1285. In Dante Alighieri's Purgatorio, the author imagines the pope loitering in purgatory because of his overindulgence. Dante's work includes this ditty:

The eels are glad that he is dead
And lies interred in his low bed
Who, as their doom for mortal sins,
When living stripped them of their skins"

---------------------
A neat little tidbit from Matthew Jacob and Mark Jacob's What the Great Ate: A Curious History of Food & Fame, 66.

For "Alfredo Garcia", if that really is my name

2010-07-26T08:38:00.000-07:00

I wrote a piece on the Tea Party and biblical exegesis that got picked up by the Washington Post's online On Faith page. (Rest assured, I did NOT use the word "exegesis" in the piece) The best part, however, has been reading the commentary. I knew that this piece would call for an eruption of sound from keyboards across America. Okay, maybe not. But I at least knew that there would be some great commentary to read.

My favorite is this one from the Free Republic. All textual formatting has been preserved as it is on the webpage.

-----------------

This is just another "Lame-Stream-Media" lap dog of the Obama Minions,
sucking up to the FASCISTS and MARXISTS that have taken over the Democrats.

The question that we should be debating ... is ...

Is The Democrat Party, And Barack Hussein Obama II ... Unbiblical?

But back to the devious article.

"Is the Tea Party unbiblical?"

"HELL NO!!!"

So... just who IS "Alfredo Garcia" of Religion News Service?

About Alfredo Garcia

"Hey there! I'm currently a graduate student at Harvard Divinity School who just finished a fellowship at St. Paul's School, London, England. I write mostly about science and religion but also dabble in general religion-in-the-news topics. I graduated from Duke University in 2008 with a B.S. in Biological Anthropology, a second major in Religious Studies, and a minor in Chemistry. My current research interests are in science and religion, the sociology of religion, philosophy of science/biology, and religion and politics. I am beginning my two-year Masters in Theological Studies at Harvard Divinity School with a concentration in Religion and the Social Sciences."

Another "useful idiot" for the communists, I'll bet.

But back to this diversion of a question, Is the Tea Party unbiblical?"

"Yes."

Well Mr. Alfredo Garcia, (if that is your real name), have you ever read the Bible?

--------------------

Wow.

Makes me remember to update my blogspot bio on my profile. My favorite bit, though, is the last sentence where he questions my name entirely. Too many people think it's fake, all thanks to the amazingly terrible movie Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia.

Another round of blog links

2010-07-26T08:03:00.000-07:00

Monday, 19 July, "Atheists to take care of pets during Rapture." One organization has found a means of making money off of the fear of the end of times.

Tuesday, 20 July, "The mosque that is tearing New York apart." Emotions are high, and so is the volume of the voices. But one television commercial on the topic is too controversial for television networks.

Wednesday, 21 July, "Feet and evangelism." What Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina, André Bauer, does in his spare time.

Friday, 23 July, "Jesus toast." An image of the crucifix made out of 153 pieces of charred toast.

Blog posts elsewhere

2010-07-19T10:14:00.000-07:00

I have been busy updating the RNS blog every day, so I bring you the links to those posts here:

Monday, 12 July, "Dirty words, God's language?". About a priest who uses local slang and expletives to reach out and evangelize in Mexico's worst districts. Was a topic that came up while I was researching La Familia Michoacana.

Tuesday, 13 July, "Ramadan a remedy for AIDS". Turns out that the period of Ramadan served as data for AIDS experts who have called for month-long abstinence as one means of helping reduce HIV/AIDS.

Wednesday, 14 July, "Haikus for Glenn Beck". Got something to say to Beck about social justice? Say it in Haiku form. Sponsored by Jewish Funds for Justice.

Thursday, 15 July, "Dancing on (mass) graves". Holocaust survivor dances to the tune of "I will Survive" at concentration camps in Germany with his kids and grandkids.

Friday, 16 July, "What's the difference between hijab, burqa, etc". With all the news about France, Spain, and Belgium and the forbidding of head coverings, this post just gives a little bit of help in distinguishing the different types of Muslim garb.

Blogs, Clips, Celebration

2010-07-12T07:21:00.000-07:00

Saturday's edition of the Washington Post had my story about La Familia and their hijacking of an American evangelical's best-seller! My first "in print" news story. Took me 3 weeks, but I did it! It's really an exciting feeling to see your name in print. And I hear it never gets old.

I've also done some posts over on the RNS blog, and I encourage you to check them out and comment! Check back daily as there will be something new every day.

More Blogging

2010-07-08T09:21:00.000-07:00

As of today, I will now also be contributing to the Religion News Service blog.

Up to now, the blog has mainly been used to post a daily Religion "Roundup" that has all the sources on religion topics worldwide that we could cull together (a wonderful way to catch important religion news). I will also be contributing posts daily, hopefully.

I will post links here when the posts go live!

French Guerrilla Artist "Princess Hijab"

2010-07-07T08:57:00.000-07:00

I just came across this YouTube video of Princess Hijab, a French guerrilla artist who goes around painting hijabs/niqabs on advertisements throughout the city of Paris.

It's incredible how much she can say with just one black paint marker. It reminds me of similar artwork that I saw at the Banksy exhibit in Bristol, UK, in August of last year, especially the second image in that post.

I found Princess Hijab's work to be brilliant, absolutely brilliant. And she did a nice job explaining the difficulty of assessing the hijab culturally. On one side, it can be empowering for women and can serve to keep eyes off of them. But, ironically, it is what attracts the most stares in the West.

Choosing to cover attractive models in clothing ads, however, is a brilliant way to get emotions flowing. But emotions are not absent in France what with French MP's currently discussing the hijab, as always, and trying to determine whether or not to make it illegal to wear full veils in public. Just another thing to add to the ongoing debate on laicité in France.

A Rabbi and an Atheist walk into an auditorium...

2010-07-06T05:03:00.001-07:00

Rabbi David Wolpe describes his sparring with Christopher Hitchens in this wonderfully written piece in the "On Faith" section of the Washington Post.

Secularists wary of Kagan

2010-07-04T13:47:00.000-07:00

A fellow RNS writer has published a piece, "Secularists wary of Kagan on Supreme Court," that has some interesting bits about the secular reaction to Kagan. Enjoy!

Do Atheists embody that which they hate?

2010-07-03T20:00:00.000-07:00

I write this title on purpose because I have spoken to many, many people out there who would very quickly answer the question with an adamant "Yes." Far too often I have heard people deride Atheists, specifically the New Atheists. For many conversations I have listened to the equation of New Atheists and fundamentalists, to people who have reached their limit of tolerance with the arguments.

And today, I turn to discuss these very matters.

A few posts ago, I discussed David Hart's words on the New Atheists. The current post, however, is inspired by a short article by Paul Prather in the Lexington Herald-Leader. It is a piece that has even garnered the attention of The Friendly Atheist over at the American Atheist web page.

In it, Prather goes through the many statements that I am all but too familiar with. For instance:

The irony is that this current brand of aggressive atheism is just another form of fundamentalism.

The "new atheism," as it's called by its adherents, is itself a kind of church.

And finally,

My objection to the new atheists isn't that they're atheists. It's that they strike me as hypocrites.

In essence, Prather's words are concisely defined in his title: Atheists embody the very things they hate.

Although the post is short, it is presented with a lot of sting. There are many who agree with Prather, however, a growing majority who contribute to the flowing hatred of Atheists in particular. But with a statement like Prather's, it's always nice to talk about the data. As my cousin says, "In God we trust. Everybody else, bring data."

For this, I turned to Bruce Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer's piece, Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers. In it, the authors discuss a variety of traits in religion and non including one topic that many authors, like Prather, discuss: dogmatism.

In their chapter on "Dogmatism," the authors come upon some interesting results from their surveys. They define "dogmatism" as relatively unchangeable, unjustified certainty. They used a survey method that did not mention religion specifically, but instead could be used to adapt to any kind of dogmatism: scientific, religious, political, environmental, etc.

The way the scale worked, however, was by using hypothetical situations and then asking the respondent how likely they would be to believe or disbelieve and what amount of evidence would they require for it to be true. I've left the numbers out because they would just be boring in a post like this. You can check the book out if you'd like.

The authors, however, were surprised to find relatively high levels of dogmatism amongst the sample of Atheists that they covered (the study was methodologically sound), saying at one point, "To top it off, a majority in all three atheist samples stated that nothing conceivable could change their minds about the existence of the traditional God" (67).

This is not isolated to Atheists, however. Religious people surveyed were also equally as dogmatic in their beliefs. "Instead, it seems you can find high levels of closed-mindedness at each end of the belief spectrum" (67)

Ending the chapter on a sad note, the authors summarized saying "So, overall our atheist groups resembled their fundamentalist counterparts much more in dogmatism than we imagined they would" (68), not good news for those of us who try and repel the slander against Atheists.

The question remaining, however, is: why? Why did these Atheists demonstrate such dogmatism in belief? The authors give three answers:

1. Disaffiliation. Most of the Atheists were theists before, so they have a "been there, done that" mentality. They found the fault in their mentality and have chosen their belief structure, something that many people do not necessarily do. "In contrast, very few theists have ever been atheists, and hence appear more susceptible to the charge of blindly, dogmatically following the path trod by their ancestors" (67)

2. Science. Many Atheists see their stance as bearing scientific credibility, so it does no feel like dogmatism to assert their stance.

and probably the most interesting consideration:

3. Being hated. When you have suffered in society so much, would you be willing to consider you were wrong? A significant price is paid when one asserts Atheism, so why would you just treat it lightly and consider that you might be wrong?

It is this last thread that I will pick up in my third of three posts on this topic. =) Enjoy.

Is being a Hindu, Sikh a handicap for politics?

2010-07-01T06:16:00.000-07:00

My first full-length piece for RNS: "Can Sikhs, Hindus get elected without converting?"

Pope fights secularization

2010-06-29T06:39:00.000-07:00

Article that came out today by the AP: Pope to create new office to fight secularization.

"Benedict said parts of the world are still missionary territory, where the Catholic Church is still relatively unknown. But in other parts of the world like Europe, Christianity has existed for centuries yet 'the process of secularization has produced a serious crisis of the sense of the Christian faith and role of the Church.'"

When an Atheist is useful for Christianity

2010-06-28T12:35:00.000-07:00

Tom Krattenmaker has a post in USA Today that talks about a recent venture (and upcoming book) on using Atheists to detail just what, exactly, is wrong with the Church today. It's worth a look.

"What do Christians learn when they start listening to atheists? Henderson, author of the forthcoming book The Outsider Interviews, has found that the "I'm right/you're wrong" model is a conversation-killer par excellence. So is speaking of non-converts as "lost." "Nothing sets off an atheist more than hearing a Christian say, 'I know Jesus is God and that I'm going to heaven when I die,' " Henderson says. "They also notice that we often say it loudly and arrogantly, which only serves to reinforce their negative opinion of our certainty."

Atheists are also wary of being seen as "projects." Does continued contact and eventual friendship with the Christian in their life depend on them converting?"

And Now, The Huffington Post

2010-06-24T13:48:00.000-07:00

Coming just in time before quitting for the day, I got a Google Alert that let me know that I have, indeed, made it into the Huffington Post. Let the celebrations commence.

...Drinks on me.

Okay, maybe not.

"Christian, Jewish Scholars Urge Changes to Oberammergau Passion Play Script"

My First Clip

2010-06-24T13:07:00.000-07:00

It is always very exciting to see your name in print. With this article, I begin accumulating my set of "clips", as they call it in the journalism world.

"Faith Groups Give G20 Failing Grade on Poverty"

Passion Play is Contested

2010-06-21T12:03:00.000-07:00

Working at RNS (my first day today!) has its many perks. One of them is the constant stream of really interesting religion-in-the-news topics which I can forward to you all.

First up: the largest Passion play in the world taking place this year in Oberammergau, Germany. Hundreds of thousands of spectators come to witness this play which takes place only once every ten years. Over half of the town's 5,200 inhabitants participate in the spectacle. (only town residents are allowed to act in the play)

As with most Passion plays, however, this one is not without its controversy regarding anti-Jewish stereotypes and elements. Read more here, care of RNS' free articles section: Niels Sorrells, "Germany's mega Passion play is back, and Jews are watching carefully."

David Hart and the New Atheists

2010-06-20T08:28:00.000-07:00

I've had several friends send me links the past few weeks regarding Atheism and Atheists. Over the next few days (hopefully!) I will be writing and commenting about these pieces. I am beginning an internship in DC for two months, however, writing for the Religion News Service, so my desire to write might be stunted by the fact that I will be doing just that for 40 hours a week. But I hope to put these thoughts up as quickly and succinctly as I can in the coming days.

First it was David Hart's article in First Things where he goes off on the New Atheism and its proponents. Gone are the days, he says, of really good skepticism and Atheism. What remains today is nothing but an annoyance, a pest that has not gone away yet. His language is quite terse at times:

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel.

He goes on to detail what "real" Atheism is (or rather, what the "real" Atheism that he likes is) and how all the famous New Atheists of today (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris) fall short of this ideal. He ridicules them for faulty or paltry arguments, for holding onto misconceptions, for perpetuating hyperbole, and more of the like. They lack historical depth, they misconstrue the details, and they falsely present evidence. They are, if I could summarize the work in its totality, mere frauds.

This piece actually reminds me of a conversation that I had with a good friend of mine. He has studied religion for much longer than I have and has covered topics of a greater variety as well. He sat there across the table from me in the pub, however, and asked me with an incredible amount of earnestness: "Alf: where are the smart Atheists?" Time and again, he has read the works of those publishing today, and time and again, he has come away laughing at the arguments and conclusions. Where are the good ones, he asked me. Where are the Russells of today? Where are the Ingersolls? This is a question very close to that of Hart's.

I remind the reader, however, that Hart is ranting against the New Atheists, not necessarily Atheists themselves (although I would think that he would equally criticize the Atheists who hold the New Atheist positions). His is a diatribe against those writers and publishers who have brought the New Atheism to the fore.

But what to make of his arguments?

First, I must admit that I find his article a bit compelling. I have read all the classic New Atheist literature, and I, too, found them to be lacking in much depth. I did, however, also find them to be incredibly compelling. I can understand why they sell so well; I can see why the arguments make so much sense. I know why these names have become ubiquitous in non-religious spheres:

They have an irresistible kick to them.

Okay, what do I mean by that. Well, for starters, they are written in a language that is just enough sarcasm, just enough tongue-in-cheek, coupled with an excellent vocabulary and academic know-how to make them simultaneously enjoyable and thought enriching. Admit it: these books are fun to read.

These authors also do an exceptional job at bringing to the fore those points of religion that remain outlandish even for theists. Violence done in the name of theism, for instance, or sacrificing animals in large tents. I have heard many a time that these authors are dishonest in their approach because of this, a criticism that I believe is not far off the mark. For when I speak of "religion" or "theism", I have to remind myself that these are not just terms that apply to extremists. They encompass individuals like my mother as well, or my friends, and, indeed, many of those authors and historical figures that I hold in high regard.

So I agree, in a sense, with Hart's criticism that these authors often lack the depth that only the study of theology or religion can bring. Even Daniel Dennett, says Hart, the philosopher of the group, leaves his philosophy at the door when writing his pieces. But these pieces work because they isolate examples that are too vicious to dispel, too outlandish to disregard. There is also the question of whether it is appealing because people want them to be true, but that is a question for another day.

My second point is a bit of a criticism for Hart. One of his main concerns with the New Atheists is that they do not produce anything "new". Their arguments, he says, are merely recycled bits from years past. And, on top of that, they are bad ones that have been addressed time and again by theists. Religion does bad things, for instance, or you cannot measure God, is another. They are arguments that draw out annoyance on the part of Hart: he is tired of them. They present too simplistic an image of God and of religion, they do not work (both philosophically and theologically), and they are just plan dumb.

My reaction to that is a bit complicated, I must admit. On one level, I agree that many of the arguments are a bit trite. Hitchens' piece is a mere repetition of "Religious people do bad things in the name of religion, therefore religion is bad." Regardless of its satirical tone, it does leave much to be desired.

But on the other hand, I believe that Hart falls into the only-too-easy pitfall of disregarding the importance and significance of the paradigm. I would love to speak with Hart and invite him to participate in a thought exercise. Imagine, for a moment, that you are NOT religious, that you hold no theistic belief; if that is too difficult, then I would invite him to join me in watching a religious ceremony that is totally alien to his (probably Christian) faith. Watch any religious act, or listen to any theistic argument, and attempt to eliminate any trappings of religiosity that you have inside of you. And then ask yourself: "What do I make of this?"

My point here is that I believe that all too often, theists are quick to judge Atheism as being too simplistic, as lacking intellectual depth. But I believe that these authors often miss the point. I believe that many have not taken the time to examine their faith as an outsider, to look at their practices, beliefs, and structures with a completely disinterested and removed eye. If they did, I would be very inclined to say that they would realize, at least for a fraction of a second, what it is that Atheists in general, and the New Atheists in particular, see. I would argue that they would understand why theism is so difficult for many to accept, and why the New Atheist authors are so successful in their ventures.

So my second point is this: okay Hart, you have a point. But you also lack the ability to get inside the Atheist's head and to remove yourself from your theistic point of view. Yes, Hart likes Russell. Yes, he likes Nietzsche. But I firmly believe that the only reason he cites them is because their arguments are such that they still leave room open for theism. He cites them because he likes them (of course) and because they do not write with the sarcastic tone of the authors today. He cites them because they do not cause as much friction with his paradigm. It is almost as though he cites them because, in a way, he agrees with them.

Now, I must emphasize that the reverse of my criticism must also take place: I firmly believe that Atheists must, in their writings against God, take theism into consideration. They must place themselves in the mystical, philosophical, theological, and metaphysical space of theism when they choose to dispel it. As I said above, my trick is to think of my mother (leave any joking jabs about being a mamma's boy out of the comments section, please). When religion seems so foreign, so bizarre, and so devoid of morality, I remember my mother and her enthusiasm to wake up every Sunday to serve as a Eucharistic Minister at her parish, a lifelong goal that came only in her fifth decade of life. I remember how important it is for her to shower me with holy water before I leave home for another semester, or how she lights a candle in front of her statue of the Madonna every morning and prays an ever-growing prayer for all of those in her mind and heart.

So in a sense, this last point brings back in my friend's statement: "Where are the smart Atheists?" But I would also counter and say: "Where are the experimental theists?"

This post has already become too long, but next I will consider an article from a Kentucky newspaper that asks the question "Do Atheists embody everything that they hate?" This is a wonderful question, and I have some data to share. And finally, I will return to the question of Atheism's social consequences and discuss how difficult it really is to be an Atheist in today's American society. And finally, I want to write about a little "theory" I have been thinking about recently regarding Atheism, apathy, and social function. I hope you enjoyed this post, and I look forward to your comments!

Atheists and Money

2010-06-15T14:12:00.000-07:00

My post yesterday that gave a graph of income by religious belief was spawned by the talk I gave on religious disaffiliation. I had spoken about the large amount of social friction that the non-religious in general, and Atheists in particular, feel in American society today, and one of my good friends approached me with the question over whether there is any evidence for Atheists making less money than other religions. I had not come across any literature on that, but he quickly sent me a link to this graph after doing a search online.

Firstly, I was happy to see that no: the non-religious (or rather, non-affiliated by this graph) do not make less money than other denominations. That would have been a marker for looking deeper into this problem and finding out whether that was a product of social discontent with Atheists or more a result of the composition of Atheists in the sample.

Secondly, I'm incredibly surprised to see that the averages given for the non-affiliated are nearly exactly the same as the national average. Also something worth considering when determining the composition of the unaffiliated in the US.

The graph remains, however, really interesting. Any comments from the readers?

Almighty Dollar

2010-06-14T10:13:00.001-07:00

Great visual graph of distribution of income by religious belief.

New Blog to Consider

2010-06-05T18:59:00.001-07:00

Photograph I took during field work at an Antiochian Orthodox Church in Davie, Florida

For those of you who have enjoyed reading this blog up to now, I encourage you to bookmark a new blog by a good friend of mine here at Harvard Divinity School. Aptly titled, "Our Religion is Not Simple," Zack Guiliano's blog will explore his "own meandering thoughts on theology, history, and philsophy, as well as whatever else crosses [his] mind." I have had wonderful conversations with Zack and only look forward to what he will produce in his new life as a blogger!

The Question

2010-05-29T12:22:00.001-07:00

A friend of mine from undergrad (and a reader of this blog!) has posed the following question to me:

What do you think about nonviolence? Is it futile? Is it important? What do you think will sufficiently motivate individuals and nations towards a non-violent attitude and mode of conduct?

A loaded and infinitely complex question, indeed. I will seek to answer it in the coming days as I sit back and think about this a bit more. I do have to say, however, that you have left me with quite the task, Clay. =)

Rasslin' with Religion and Science

2010-05-29T12:12:00.000-07:00

In the following video, professors Byron R. McCane and Dan Matthewson compare the work of popular science and religion to professional wrestling. I must admit that I condescendingly rolled my eyes at the beginning of the talk. I thought to myself: here's just yet another "interesting" way that an academic is "pushing back" on the science and religion "conversation." Comparing it to professional wrestling was, in my opinion, just another way to get a paper written. Indeed, at the beginning it felt as though the over-intellectualizing of professional wrestling was going to inevitably lead to its dramatic death at the end of the talk.

But the speakers pleasantly surprised me. I enjoyed the talk and found it to be really useful for understanding the hyperbolic treatment of science and religion as it relates to the writings of Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham. The main premise of the talk: as in professional wrestling, where it is more about the showmanship and the stunts and not actual fighting, so in the writings of Dawkins and Ham: all about the rhetorical devices and performance with little actual intellectual input.

I hope you enjoy the piece. It is about an hour long.

Rasslin' with Religion & Science from Religion Dispatches on Vimeo.

Losing My Religion: Disaffiliation as a Sociological Process

2010-05-18T12:19:00.001-07:00

The video of a talk that I gave to the Massachusetts Bible Society is now available at the following link:

http://www.massbible.org/video-luncheon-Garcia

Teaching the "Controversy"

2010-05-07T07:46:00.000-07:00

Teachers are being silenced, professors are being denied tenure, grants are being rescinded, and students are being hushed: all because of the simple fact that they wish to challenge the given orthodoxy. If comments or questions even hint at a possible denial of plausibility within evolutionary theory and natural selection, they are immediately discredited and punished through these means. But where is the academic freedom that the academy in America prides itself on? Where is the fairness in this secrecy and silencing? How is it that we support these Draconian measures?

A quick perusal of the Discovery Institute’s (DI) main page will bring these issues to the fore. The leading source for funding and research on the theory of Intelligent Design (ID), this organization has the fourfold goal of (1) challenging neo-Darwinian theory, (2) supporting ID theory, (3) challenging the influence of scientific materialism on culture, and (4) promoting an educational stance known as “teach the controversy.” As part of these measures, the DI focuses many of its publications and resources to supporting “academic freedom.” They view many of the issues regarding evolutionary theory in the classroom much as the first paragraph portrayed: there is a conspiratorial closed-door policy amongst the scientific community, one that is afraid of exposing the ineffectiveness of evolutionary theory.

It is this theme of “teach the controversy”, however, that I wish to explicate a bit further. It is a phrase that comes up often in the DI literature. It is basically summarized as this:

1. Not every scientist agrees with evolutionary theory. In fact, many scientists disagree with even how evolutionary theory works.
2. Because this disagreement exists, schools should not teach evolutionary theory as a completely accepted scientific fact.
3. Instead, we should “teach the controversy” [there it is!] and encourage students to see all the sides of the issue.
4. ID is one of the alternate sides of the issue.
5. Therefore, ID should be taught alongside evolutionary theory.

With this rationale, it is very difficult to disagree with the DI and other ID proponents. It tugs at the American concept of fairness and our incessant need to cheer for the underdog. If there is a controversy, then of course it must be brought out! And, indeed, ID is supported by many scientists with excellent credentials. Even more reason to bring it into discussion.

But here we come to my point: this is all merely a large misunderstanding of what the “controversy” is and where, exactly, this “controversy” lies.

We must distinguish between two types of controversies: (1) controversies that take place regarding the paradigmatic status of evolutionary theory, and (2) controversies that take place within the paradigmatic status of evolutionary theory. The former is what the DI seeks to present to its readership, namely that there is a question regarding the evolutionary paradigm. There are questions as to its validity in science, its usefulness in explanatory power, and its truthfulness.

This, however, is a completely false representation of the field. There is actually no question in the scientific community over the soundness of evolutionary theory. Scientists do not debate evolutionary theory per se; instead, they participate in the second kind of controversy stated above: the questions within evolutionary theory. These may range from (often heated) debates about the proper placement of the species in the Homo genus through human evolution or the amount of evidence that mitochondrial DNA can present for the origins of eukaryotic cell evolution.

What “teach the controversy” does, however, is mistakenly place evidence of controversies within evolutionary theory as being representative of controversies regarding evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is very established in the scientific community for a reason: the overwhelming amount of continuing data that supports it. It is continually being reformulated and reshaped, as are all scientific theories. (As an aside, I would like to point out that even the theory of gravity was given a breath of fresh air just in the 20^th century with Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity theory) But this does not demonstrate that these theories are ineffective and should be discarded. And this most certainly does not support the conclusion that students should be taught ID.

In the end, I agree with one thing that the DI scheme states above: we should teach the controversy. It is absolutely essential, however, that we recognize what the actual controversy is and, more importantly, where the controversy lies.

Army Chaplains Defend Don't Ask/Don't Tell

2010-05-03T08:40:00.000-07:00

In a letter dated April 28, 2010, forty retired military chaplains ask President Obama to NOT repeal the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy.

When Satire Gets a Little Too Close for Comfort

2010-04-23T14:36:00.000-07:00

What is the freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

- Salman Rushdie, writer (b. 1947)

Trey Parker and Matt Stone, producers and creators of the popular TV show "South Park," have reconsidered airing their latest show, one which depicts the prophet Muhammad. A post on revolutionmuslim.com warned Parker and Stone that the show may land them in a similar situation to Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by radical Islamic extremists in 2004 for his documentary on violence against women in some Islamic societies. Parker and Stone have, understandably, removed some of the controversial material from their show, preferring instead to block out the image of Muhammad with a black box and bleeping a speech at the end that spoke of intimidation and religion. What this means for media, religion, and satire remains to be figured out. Comedy Central, however, has defended its push for censorship by stating that it was in consideration not only for Parker and Stone but also for the other workers of the show.

A few years ago, when I co-taught a course that was, appropriately enough, titled "South Park, Religion, and Satire," my colleague and I mused on how difficult it was to actually find a piece on Islam. We had the Catholics taken care of (and South Park really leaves no holds barred in that regard), the Hindus (thank you The Simpsons), the Mormons (the oh-so-famous South Park, yet again), and even those Protestant rock bands and teen-hip-faith groups (King of the Hill). But Islam: it just was not there.

And now we get the episode that has not only raised eyebrows, it has raised fists, subliminal death threats, and even censorship. I have to admit, South Park has done an incredible amount of footage that has gone without censorship, both religiously inclined and not. But this case, one in which the depiction of Muhammad is hinted at, has gotten a bit too close for comfort for some.

But that is the nature of satire. Its power and its use lies in the fact that it takes a topic and submits it to the extremes of hyperbole AND reality. Satire is often hated because it both mirrors and mimics the topic it is addressing. Too close for comfort is the modus operandi for satire. And that, my friends, is part of the reason that satire is a genre that I consider genius. It is through the friction that it creates, through its ability to be oh-so-wrong and yet all-too-consistent, that it possesses its power of insight.

It can be asked, however, whether satire should keep out of religion and religious topics. Ever since the Danish Cartoon Controversy, it seems as though the topic has become ever more relevant. In my Muslims in the West class in undergrad, we discussed this issue at length. Yet even though my professor's mission was to have us understand why the conflict grew to be what it was and why the satire was inappropriate, even though we read Asad's words on the matter and considered the nature of art and Islam, I still had a difficult time conceding that the cartoonists merited the reaction that they received. I still hold this position today.

Satire, however, continues to push forward and ruffle feathers. In Germany, it is the Catholic Church that is getting the hardest hit, this link depicting the covers of a satirical magazine. It is not even absent from the personal writings in British Parliament, as this Telegraph report suggests.

When considering satire, however, I believe that it must be the message that is to be attacked or condemned, not necessarily the act of satirizing. In the South Park episode, the message of the show was about intolerance. The producers danced around the image of Muhammad because that was their way of bringing the matter to the fore. By focusing so much on the fact that they were considering, or might have, or could have shown the image of Muhammad misses the point altogether. It would be similar if we accused Johnathan Swift of being a barbaric sociopath through his condoning of cannibalism in his "A Modest Proposal."

It misses the point. And that is, I believe, what often takes place regarding satire and the response to it. Focus on the message and consider what it is that is being satirized. What is underneath the jokes and jabs? Why is it that it makes you uncomfortable?

-----------------------

For some satirical responses to the South Park episode and the revolutionmuslim.com reactions, check out this cartoon at Jesus and Mo. John Stewart also has a 10 minute clip where, in all his genius, he rants against the reaction and presents the numerous clips throughout the years in which his show has satirized all other religions. This is a must-see!

Junior Position in Science and Religion - Harvard Divinity School

2010-04-19T18:37:00.001-07:00

I have been appointed to be one of three student liaisons to the search committee for a junior, tenure-track appointment in Science and Religion newly endowed by Richard T. Watson at Harvard Divinity School. I post it here and encourage anybody who reads this e-mail to help out in the search! Forward the information to a professor, reblog it on your own page, or feel free to leave a nomination for somebody we should consider in the comments section below. Any and all help is greatly appreciated!

-----

Harvard Divinity School invites applications and nominations for a Junior tenure-track appointment in Science and Religion newly endowed by Richard T. Watson. The appointment is intended to advance research and thinking on the interrelations of contemporary science and religion, each broadly defined. Applicants may work on any religious tradition or scientific topic. They may draw on a range of methods and disciplines, such as anthropology, sociology of knowledge, history of science, history of medicine, and philosophy or theology, including ethics. The successful applicant will be able to apply the particular research to critical reflection on current debates about science, religion, and their relations.

Candidates must show promise of distinguished publication in their field and a commitment to excellence in its teaching. They must hold the doctoral degree before assuming the position in the fall semester of 2011. They should be competent in the research languages or methods needed for their area of specialization. They should be able to teach and advise at both doctoral and master's levels. Whatever their research speciality, applicants must be able to participate widely in the Divinity School's degree programs, including it's M.Div. program, and be familiar with forms of analysis that address race, gender, and social location. In addition to students in the Divinity School, the successful candidate will also teach undergraduates and graduate students of religion in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Harvard University is an equal opportunity, affirmative-action employer and encourages applications from women and/or ethnic minority candidates.

Letters of nomination are welcome. Letters of application, accompanied by a recent curriculum vitae, a writing sample, and three letters of recommendation should be sent to: Watson Search Committee, Matthew B. Turner, Harvard Divinity School, 45 Francis Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138. Review of applications will begin August 15, 2010. E-mail: watsonsearch@hds.harvard.edu

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/academic/facultysearch/watsonsearch.html

Reconsidering the Sociology of Religion Paradigm

2010-04-17T12:33:00.001-07:00

I am currently reading Melissa Wilde's book, Vatican II: A Sociological Analysis of Religious Change (Princeton University Press, 2007), a wonderful piece that examines the sociological conditions that played a role in the Vatican during those eventful few years. Four sessions, three years, and two popes went into the production of the most radical institutionalized religious change since the Reformation. Called by a "filler pope", somebody old and harmless that could fill in after a popular pope while the Curia work to find a more proper replacement, a mere ninety days after taking office, this revolutionary ecumenical council would come to represent a watershed moment in the history of Catholicism worldwide.

Wilde's text is a application of the current sociological paradigm, one in which the principles of economics are heavily put to use. Although I have my qualms about this methodology (which I will leave for another post), I have come to appreciate much of Wilde's thoughts regarding necessary tweaking of theory.

In particular, I have come to appreciate her encouragement of the union between theories in the sociology of religion with those in the sociology of organizations and the sociology of social movements. Looking in particular at the groups of bishops at the Vatican, the progressives and the conservatives, Wilde does an excellent job detailing how issues of organization, legitimation, and culture all come together to help explain why certain bishops voted the way they did and why some schema were more successful than others. As she states:

"I argue that in order to predict religious leaders' organizational strategies, sociologists of religion must broaden their understanding of the factors that affect them. In particular, sociologists of religion must recognize that, like other organizations, legitimacy concerns are at the heart of most organizational processes within religious institutions" (p. 30).

In particular, however, is her emphasis on the Church's placement in society, both nationally and in juxtaposition with other churches, to help explain the variety of voting patterns amongst the progressive bishops. North American and Western European nations in which the Catholic Church was not a predominant national power (either through means of Church/State separation or nationally-funded Protestant hold) were more inclined to participate in ecumenism with Protestant churches. That was a primary push in their voting and interest. In South America, however, where the Church held a powerful role, the matter was different. Protestantism was a problem, one that was becoming increasingly palpable to the Church hierarchy. Ecumenism was not first on their list, therefore, because their placement in the society was on a downfall, not an upswing as in North America and Western Europe (however meager that upswing may have been).

Wilde, therefore, sets up a very useful and interesting cross-sectional model that might be useful for future endeavors in the sociology of religion. She splits up the progressive bishops into four camps and then explains how and why their actions differed at the Council (p. 48):

1. Those from countries with low religious diversity but high stability (ie: Italy and Spain)
- Typically anti-change and not ecumenical.
- Marketing was not high on their list (ie: competing in a religious marketplace)

2. Those from countries with high religious diversity and high stability (ie: Germany, Netherlands)
- Here we see pro-change and more ecumenical (so as to rub elbows more easily with Protestants)
- Marketing was not high on their list either, however. The goal was to reach out, not compete.

3. Those from countries with low diversity and low stability (ie: Latin America)
- Here there is pro-change but not ecumenical. (remember their fear of Protestant successes in Latin American nations)
- Instead, marketing was high on the list. Competition was necessary in their eyes.

4. Those from countries with high diversity but low stability (ie: nations in Africa and Asia)
- Here we see pro-change and ecumenical coupled with a prioritized marketing strategy.
- Lots of faiths, both Christian and not, coupled with a highly fluid environment converge as pushes to both reach out and compete.

With the details that follow, Wilde presents the cogent argument that "we must examine not only the presence of other religious and political institutions in the Catholic Church's organizational field but the relationships between the Church and those institutions in order to understand the different priorities the bishops had at the Council" (p. 55).

This work, however, makes me think deeply about the viability of the Finke/Stark/Ianconne/et. al. model of religious competition in the United States. I wonder, in effect, how Wilde's reconsideration of the paradigm might be applicable to the geographical varieties that we experience in the US. Churches in the South face difference organizational pressures than those in the Northeast. In the West we see a difference when in comparison with Appalachia. And Texas itself could be spliced up even further.

I believe that Wilde's theoretical work, coupled with geographical and spatial considerations, might provide the viable link to much of the work in the sociology of religion vis-a-vis the economic paradigm. To blanket all religious change in the US with terms of competition and free-market economics masks the viable possibilities of inter-church cooperation, clerical legitimation, and the power of organizational sociology and social movements. For indeed, competition is something that takes place in geographically contingent areas and depend upon both physical and sociological resources therein.

I say we take this further in our examination of religious change in the United States. How might it be useful to incorporate geography into the discussion? And in so doing, what might be brought to light? What power does an organizational lens provide? And how might a qualitative study, via an ethnographic method, contribute to this endeavor?

A Case for Practicality

2010-02-25T15:12:00.000-08:00

As my last post spoke about, there is a page on the Social Science Research Council's blog, the Immanent Frame, that has four audio recordings of the greatest minds discussing secularization and the approach to religion in the public sphere: Habermas, Taylor, Butler, and West. You can't get any better than that all in one place; I'm envious of those who were able to attend those lectures!

The assignment was to listen to all the recordings for discussion in my course "Religion, Education, Democracy." The segment that we are covering right now is secularization in the public arena, specifically in the application of secularization to public schooling. Our task in the class this week was to come back and present the main theses of these thinkers, discussing their differences and commonalities and to do what we do best in graduate school: to "problematize" it all. (Oh how I am becoming used to hearing this term. It seems that everything I read or hear seeks to "problematize" or to express that the matter at hand really is more complicated or complex than we thought.)

The speakers all have a general platform from where they explicate. The "noise", the "messiness" of religion is needed in the public sphere. They all have their intricacies, however. For Habermas, what is needed is a universal language so that we can understand one another. It is the requirement of theists, of the faith holders, to translate their linguistics into a way that we can all understand. For Taylor, the whole concept of secularization fails because it appeals to simple rules (like laicite in France) that completely avoids the issue at hand. Making it all more simple than it is, Taylor believes that tactics like this are merely wonderfully elaborate plans to keep religion at bay. For Butler, the emphasis is on the fact that cohabitation in this world is an absolute reality, whether you like it or not. We cannot choose to live with those around us; homogeneity is a falsehood. And the sobering reality is that we have one choice now, and that's to deal with it. And then with West, Brother West, we get the appeal to look at the issue like he looks at Blues. The noise is good, it needs to be there, or else there is the fear of a dominating technocracy, oligarchy, or a commandeering minority from up above.

Oh how right they all are, in their respective fashions. And after we broke down their arguments some more, I grew to appreciate their thinking more and more.

But there was still something persistent in my skepticism of everything they were saying. Our professor encouraged us to look behind the academic rigor and to analyze where it is that they are all coming from. There is a tradition there that they are all drawing from. They say similar things, but that means that there are similar assumptions.

Somebody brought up, however, something that I feel was essential here (and remains essential anytime we discuss academic thingies), and that was the issue of practicality. How practical were these speeches, and what do these pronouncements look like on the ground.

It was only after some rumination that I came upon one small detail that they all lacked. The silence on this topic is deafening. The detail is method. And that method is non-violence.

All the speakers encourage the noise, they relish the diversity, and they call forth for voices. But none of them take it a step further and then consider that there must be the platform of respect. Yes, they speak of respect in some ways: respect for ideals, for backgrounds, for ethnicity, for beliefs. But what about respect for body? Or respect for being? I am reminded of Gandhi's work in India and his insistence, his unyielding, stubborn, and incontrovertible insistence for the ahimsa in his satyagraha campaign. It does not work without it. The only thing that was steady in all his campaigns was that: non-violence. And not only the lacking of violence, but the pursuit of non-violence, two very different things.

The friction I feel when I think about religion in the public sphere comes from my images of riots, of people dying, of tear gas, of blood. Yes, the theoretical and the intellectual still takes place there, but more than anything there is the image of pain that surmounts me. Religion in the mix doesn't work, they say, because it is divisive, it is non-universal, it is Truth with a big "T". Fine. But I like to draw a bit from Judith Butler's speech and emphasize that, unfortunately, we really do have to live with it.

And how do we do that? One step is by emphasizing non-violence.

Let the voices be heard. Let persuasion happen. Let the challenging continue. But in all of this, in all its forms, may not a single life be harmed. This is a case for practicality. It is a case for non-violence.

A Cornel West Moment

2010-02-24T07:36:00.000-08:00

I really encourage you to listen to Cornel West's lecture, "Prophetic Religion and the Future of Capitalist Civilization" on the Immanent Frame blog on the Social Science Research Council website. In his piece, Cornel West discusses that ever-persistent question: where and what is the role of religion, here dubbed "prophetic religion", in the public sphere in America.

Drawing from blues, poetry, and fiction, West mesmerized me with his skill of rhetoric and argument. What a phenomenal piece that epitomizes the sheer power that West has from the podium. His encouragement for the messy, the noisy, and the difficult in public life gives credence to his argument that it is the "centrality of the catastrophe of prophetic vision" that must remain recognized in capitalist civilization, that what we need are "voices, not echoes" so that those in the top do not dominate with greed and corruption.

Truly an amazing experience to listen to West speak. I encourage you to enjoy.

The Synoptic Problem and the Case Against Q!

2010-02-20T06:56:00.001-08:00

Probably my favorite part of New Testament scholarship is the study of the Synoptic Problem and Q. Luckily, one of my past professors is not only an expert in both these areas, but he has also podcasted on them!

I invite you to download and listen in to Mark Goodacre's explanation of these insightful areas of scholarship on NT Pods 23-26. There is also bonus, extended material on the issues. Enjoy!

2010-02-20T06:32:00.000-08:00

Homo sapiens is the species that invents symbols in which to invest passion and authority, then forgets that symbols are inventions.

-Joyce Carol Oates, writer (b. 1938)

No God for Harvard

2010-02-17T06:21:00.001-08:00

Newsweek had a great article on February 11, 2010, titled "Harvard's Crisis of Faith: Can a secular university embrace religion without sacrificing its soul?" Newsweek's religion editor Lisa Miller tackles this question by discussing the volatile position that religion continues to have in the academic milieu. In establishing general education requirements back in 2006, the issue of whether or not religion should be included in the mix brought out the claws in some of the professors participating. Leading the charge against the inclusion of religion classes was the famous psychologist Steven Pinker. His understanding of the role of higher education, one of questioning via reason and intellect, leaves him as a fervent detractor of anything regarding religion. The study of religion, he says, is important; but forcing students to take courses in the area is quite nearly an academic dishonesty.

It is so fascinating to see that religion continues to have such a volatile position even in the highest of the upper echelons of higher education. In a world where wars are being fought in the Middle East against Islamic insurgents, where Pentecostalism is rising in huge numbers in South America, where national Hinduism continues to take precedence in India, and where a meeting with the Dalai Lama might mean economic sanctions, who can argue that the study of religion is not important!?

Even the most ardent of dissenters must agree that religion continues to have the majority presence in the world today. It infuses many aspects of life and decision-making. Although thinkers like Pinker see this as irrational, it still must be something that we take seriously and consider. And nowhere is this charge more important that in higher education!

After more than a decade of public schooling where religion is more a matter of litigation than of education, thousands of Americans finally enter the collegiate arena and are offered their first chances at understanding religion. The amount of interest in the topic is so palpable. Everywhere I turn, nearly everybody I meet, has at least something to say about religion or about an interest in a subject. And it is not all related to a native, comfortable evangelical Christianity. No. The fascination with world religions, with ritual and practice, with the beliefs of others remains quite the appetite that has not been satiated.

It is a shame, then, that an institute like Harvard University, the namesake of higher education in the United States, has such a haphazard picture of the study of religion. The article above does an excellent job detailing how religion at Harvard is more piecemeal than cohesive. Not even bearing a department, the Committee on the Study of Religion is composed of academics from all disciplines, brought together by the sheer fact that they work with religion in their field. Miller sadly does not discuss the Divinity School for more than a paragraph, but that is probably rightly so. As a graduate school, the Div School is not so accessible to undergraduates. And being flung into the Northeast corner of campus, quite the trek for an undergraduate, does not add to its appeal.

Pinker's words on religion are merely a continuation of a long history of anti-religious sentiments at Harvard. Originally established for the education of clergy (as my Div School friends frequently like to remind me), the school went through its period of "enlightenment" in the 50s and 60s and nearly got rid of the Div School altogether. When the loud reaction against its dismantling led administrators to keep it, they instead pushed it to the furthest extremes of campus, well and away from the "secularizing" influences of the Yard.

Although I am not an undergraduate, I realize that religion may be well on its way to becoming but a subversive phenomenon on campus. Although faith is prevalent, the religious life is not. You can believe whatever you want, but just don't dare speak about it to anybody. Has the American intellectual landscape shifted so much to the point that religion is taboo? What kinds of risks does this reticence bring up, especially for our current considerations of politics, history, literature, and society?

A Little Humor

2010-01-17T17:51:00.000-08:00

Image taken from The Daily What.

A Justice System for the Big Guys

2010-01-15T13:08:00.000-08:00

What happens when a tenured professor steals your work and writes a book in which the central chapter, without which the whole argument would fall apart, is a nearly identical copy of your paper and yet includes no citations for your work other than a mention in an "Additional Reading" section?

Absolutely nothing. That's what.

Plagiarism and intellectual integrity continue to be a persistent problem in American production today. Stephen Ambrose got a lot of fire for his plagiarism, as did David McCullough. Indeed, every so often I hear a piece in the news about some scientific fudging, a playing with the numbers, or an outright accusation of direct robbery of ideas (J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown both were not immune to the accusations). The motives in these cases, however, are easy to determine. With record-breaking sales that bring in hundreds of thousands or even millions in royalties, successfully litigating a case can bring in a hefty penny into the bank account.

But just the other day I was exposed to a clear case of direct infringement upon intellectual property rights. I hope you bear my rather vague description of the events, but the tentative and fragile nature of the whole debacle demands my careful obscurity on the matter.

Upon learning of an upcoming lecture by a professor on a topic of interest, a colleague of mine went to discuss the topic of the lecture in advance with the visiting academic. They struck an interest and decided to discuss a possible collaboration for a future project. The professor requested that my colleague send him a piece of writing so that he could take a look at it. And off went this man's undergraduate thesis.

The professor sent an e-mail thanking my colleague for the piece and letting him know that there was a really good possibility of collaboration. He also attached the text version of the lecture given, and promised to send along a list of contacts for possible further work or doctoral research once he returned to his home campus. From that point on, there was no more communication, no contacts, and no text.

Years later, while searching for a title recommended to him by a friend, he discovered tha the visiting lecturer recently had published a book on the topic of their mutual interest. A surprise took him over as he recognized a chapter in the middle of the book with a nearly identical title as his thesis. After a short reading of the book's introduction, he realized in disgust that the chapter, adamantly described by the author as the most central part of the book, without which the rest of the argument would fall apart, was a direct plagiarism of the thesis that he had sent to the academic in trust.

The correlation between the two pieces is undeniable. I have seen the chapter and my colleague's work side by side. He has taken great pains to highlight large swaths of the work in color-coded highlighters to demonstrate the extent to which his work was copied: pink denotes sections that are nearly identical in language, style, and content to particular pieces of his thesis, yellow shows quotations that come from sources that are so obscure, so random, and so difficult to trace down (like a 1987 copy of a Sports Illustrated, for instance), that it could only have come from a perusal of his thesis.

My colleague then went through the process of defending his rights under US intellectual property law. The sad truth is, however, that the system seems to protect the big guy in this case. Discussing the matter with a lawyer, the first thing that was asked was whether the piece had been registered with the US Library of Congress for a copyright. Yes, the thesis had been registered. The only problem, however, was that it was registered in 2007.

The book that plagiarizes his piece was published in 2006.

First problem: although he definitely had a case and had ample evidence, the lawyer let him know that the damages that would be repaid to him would basically entail that he would get a fair share of profits and a reprint of the book would require proper citation. Now, if you know anything about academic writing you will know that it is not a very financially lucrative piece of the market, to say the least. Therefore, the actual amount of monetary compensation would be small. In addition, however, the courts will not grant compensatory payment for all the other things that went into litigation such as court fees and lawyer fees.

So even though he has a case, no lawyer will touch it because they know that even if they win, my colleague will still probably not be able to pay all the costs of litigation.

My colleague tried many other avenues:

- He asked Harvard if they would help since, as an employee and alumnus, he has deep ties to the school. In addition, the professor took my colleague's piece after a lecture that he gave at Harvard. Unfortunately, however, the piece in question was written at his undergraduate institution, not during his time at Harvard either as a student or staff, and therefore Harvard could not help much outside of recommending private counsel.

- So he turned to his alma mater for help. E-mails went unanswered and indifference was the norm. Even as a dues paying alumnus, his undergraduate institution was uninterested. And it was not even money he was seeking but rather institutional backing. His intellectual property had clearly been infringed upon and, due to the feigned mirage of academic honesty that his undergraduate institution promotes, he figured that the institution would stand beside him in this litigation and possibly prevent a counter suite. But, unfortunately, his undergraduate institution has done nothing.

In the end, my friend finds himself in a tough spot. With his evidence lined up, all he can do is continue thinking about his thesis, the crucial chapter in a published book by a sneaky academic with no spine. He offered me great advice, however, for me to share with others so that future incidents like this can be prevented.

Firstly, register your work. Whether it is a thesis, a poem, or an article, any unpublished work that you are proud of should be registered. This can be done relatively easily on the copyright's website. Once it is registered, you will receive a document certifying its recognition.

Secondly, put disclaimers on your work. If it is not registered, do not be afraid to put a little disclaimer on your work. It can be as long or short as you prefer, but have it detail something to the effect that this piece is property of the author and any use of the work requires written permission of the author only. Although a small step, this could save you tremendous headaches in the future.

And finally, be careful to whom you send your written work. Although many advisers recommend sending your writing to as many people as possible, thus ensuring that your name circulates around the academic world, make sure that you know (a) to whom you are sending the piece and (b) what, exactly, they intend on doing with it. Make e-mails explicit regarding the use of your content.

It is very important that authors protect their rights in these ways. Although "the system" may have been created to help the little guys and prevent academic dishonesty, in cases like these it seems to favor the big ones who are willing to risk getting away with it. Be smart about your intellectual property and protect it.

First Amendment for Non-Religion?

2010-01-11T15:39:00.000-08:00

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

With that short little line, with those few words, the First Amendment to the US Constitution addresses one of the most volatile topics that US politics and law have had to contend with: religion. How laconic these words are. No laws on establishment, and none on prohibiting free exercise. Simple, yet simultaneously powerful and difficult in its right.

What I am interested these days is the role that non-theism plays in the wider sociology of American religious and political life. The New Humanism movement has swept broadly here at Harvard with the publication of Greg Epstein's book, Good Without God. Contrasting to the New Atheism, the New Humanism attempts to be one of many voices regarding religion, ethics, and morality. While the New Atheists are characteristically vitriolic, the New Humanists are conciliatory. Instead of antagonism, the New Humanists preach coexistence.

What is taking place, however, is a careful reexamination of what it means to have full religious representation under the government. Recently, a court case appeared regarding an atheist soldier's right not to attend events where there was prayer. Stephen Prothero of Boston University also mentions how other nonbelievers also call out for their point of view, one "deserving of constitutional protection and fair hearing." In these articles, unbelief is being summoned as a Constitutional right. Instead of respecting the rights of believers, these nonbelievers want respect for their unbelief (a terribly worded sentence, I admit).

How does this play in regarding the First Amendment, however? In a system that currently runs on a liberal political theory a la John Rawls, where secularism is the default, the lowest common denominator, religion has merely been seen as something akin to "those things people do." Unbelief or any equivalent is the means to proceed forward in discussions and analysis.

But what happens when unbelief begins to call out for its rights? No longer is religion the only game in town for something that people "do". Atheism, skepticism, humanism...whatever you want to call it...it now also carries weight as representative. With 16% of the United States claiming "no religion" on sociological surveys, this is a sizable chunk of the religious landscape. But is there a "right" to something that is absent? Is it appropriate for nonbelievers to claim that their rights are violated when they see, hear, or encounter anything religious? And if so, what does this do to our understanding of theism and non-theism? What does this say about religion? And, one step further, what does this do to liberal political theory and its foundation in secularization?

This idea of "rights for unbelief" is something that I will continue to toy with in the coming weeks as I prepare to take a course on secularization.

Humanities - Just Don't Go There?

2010-01-07T18:12:00.000-08:00

On January 30, 2009, Thomas Benton provided a sobering advice column in The Chronicle of Higher Education with the title "Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go." The stark message, as the title implies, is that it just does not pay to go to graduate school in the humanities. Lack of funding, lack of positions, the nearly impossible prospect for tenure, and the terrible life therein are all harked upon as what awaits those of us who dare follow in his footsteps (Benton, it should be mentioned, is an associate professor of English at Hope College in Holland, MI). He paints the picture of the typical graduate student as an emotionally/psychologically needy sycophant, one who is accustomed to the metronomic pace of school, who is fearful of starting in the real world with, well, no real skills.

Ouch.

The naive seeker is then coupled with the macabre world of academe. Lack of positions is just one of the problems. Then there is the problem of finding an actual livable salary. And in all of this, there is no real decision on where you would like to live; it is the job that demands geography. And if you do then decide to look for work outside of academe, you end up starting at the bottom of the stack, replete with no practical training, a full decade behind your cohort.

Sigh.

In the end, his opinion is that there are four circumstances that should call for a graduate degree in the humanities:
- You don't need the money yourself (you're independently wealthy)
- You're already really well connected in academe and can secure a position through those connections
- You can rest comfortably knowing that your spouse will be able to provide financially for your lack in that department (see first point above)
- or You are getting a degree for a position you already hold and, on top of that, the employer is paying for it.

It's all incredibly sad and heavy; the kinds of responses I received from fellow graduate students in religion when I posted this on my facebook profile support this. As Benton says, however, "It can be painful, but it is better that undergraduates considering graduate school in the humanities should know the truth now, instead of when they are 30 and unemployed, or worse, working as adjuncts at less than the minimum wage under the misguided belief that more teaching experience and more glowing recommendations will somehow open the door to a real position." Jesus, Mary, and Joseph: put me out of my misery.

I am not clueless to this world of the unforeseeable future. Getting into the humanities took a lot of guts first and foremost, especially in a time of economic downturn such as now. Calls from around the country seem to cry out "off with their heads!" to humanities departments. A New York Times article from February 2009 even calls for the humanities to justify their worth in today's day and age. (Leon Wieseltier provided a great rebuttal to this piece in The New Republic, but I can't seem to find it right now) What good is studying the humanities anyway, they seem to say? Books piled high from ground to ceiling don't make cars go. Feminist theory or (even worse!) literary theory will not make the groceries cheaper. Plato and Aristotle have done all they can do; let them rest already!

The sad fact, however, is that the plagues cited by Benton are not only isolated to the humanities. As a Biological Anthropology major in undergrad, I continually heard of the fear that graduate students in that field have in the job market. Biological anthropology, physical anthropology, archaeological sciences, anatomy, etc: all these semi-congruent areas exhibit many of the financial, geographic, and logistical nightmares as the humanities. Indeed, they may even exhibit the pinch even more: while every university has an English department, not every university bears a department to provide professorships for these areas.

Even in the hard sciences, life is tough. The oversupply of labor in the academic market is not isolated to just the humanities. To define yourself amongst the thousands in genetics, or to really shine as a top notch chemist, you have to dedicate yourself to grueling years with pipettes and spectrometers.

Ultimately, I finished reading this article and wanted to call it quits. But then less than a second of thinking reminded me of what it is to be in this field. I am afraid of not finding a job, that is true. But that fear is more than offset by the insatiable curiosity which has taken ahold of me, the wonderful exhilaration that I feel in seeking answers, and the pride I take in the written word. Yes, the job market in the humanities is tough, but so is it in all other aspects of academe. Yes, insurmountable more monies go to the sciences than the humanities, with the social sciences falling somewhere in between, but that does not necessarily mean that there will not be funding for future work in the humanities. Indeed, it was with the post 9/11 interest in Islam that suddenly hundreds of millions of dollars were going to religious studies departments countrywide for the inception of Islamic studies programs. Who would have seen that coming a decade ago?

I guess that what Benton is saying is that if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. It's a foreboding warning to those who want to get into the field, who think they have the chops to do so. It's not for everybody, as he says (although I think his list of conditions for who should apply is grossly misguided). His assessment is, in my opinion, overly pessimistic and should be taken into consideration accordingly. The world changes, and so do the humanities. For my part, however, I will just continue contributing to that field and hope for the best.

2009 - A Year of Science and Religion

2010-01-04T08:21:00.001-08:00

Darwin's birthday AND the anniversary of his Origin, the publication of Ardipithecus ramidus more than a decade after its discovery, and yet more debilitating discussion surrounding science education in the US: these and other stories are being touted by Religion Dispatches as the Top Ten Religion & Science Stories of 2009. It seems as though most of the issues in 2009 continued to revolve around the creation/evolution/faith lines. It's popular, it's volatile, and it continues to call the attention of Americans: can you have faith and still believe in evolution?

Other stories, however, deal with public health and education policy vis-a-vis religion. Texas continues to push for the inclusion of Intelligent Design language in its science curricula (not to mention the stories I have read of historical revisionism in social studies curricula). The election of Francis Collins to head the NIH caused huge uproars throughout the blogosphere. And finally, the acceptance of stem cell lines by Obama and Collins provided a huge sigh of relief for a scientific community that had been holding its breath for two terms of an administration bent upon negating any and all federal dollars for the cause.

In the end, it seems to be a little bit of the same old stuff from previous years. The ever vocal conservative groupings that harp on evolution and expound conspiracy theories regarding the scientific community continue taking the lead in all that is considered "science and religion" today. I wonder if this is what science and religion will continue being. Although I find Creationists fascinating, more for the sociological rather than theological or religious insight, I cannot help but find them to be increasingly annoying, even from an academic standpoint. A regurgitation year after year of the same, only there is less and less historical homework done as time goes on.

Moreover, the question that has remained on the table for way too long continues to be hacked at by scientists, theologians, and the popular media: Can you really be religious and scientific? No, seriously. Really? And from there begins the laundry list of sorts: Scientists who are religious; Religious people who hate science; Scientists who detest or renounce faith; Religious people who love science; The amount of angels that fit on the head of a needle.

Again, more of the same, only with less historical homework. I continue to hope, however, that possibly things will change.

----------------------

As a side note, I love the Religion Dispatches subtitle: "exhilarating the breakfast table since 2008".

2010 - The Year of Primary Sources

2010-01-02T11:52:00.000-08:00

As the new year is upon us (whether it's called "two-thousand-ten" or "twenty-ten" is a discussion I will leave for others to ponder), I have had to sit back and wonder about those pesky "resolutions" that I consider every year. Lose weight? Nah. Save more? I wish I made enough money to even consider saving. No, I will not take the normal route that me and others have taken. Instead of a new haircut (joke) or wardrobe, other than aspiring towards a better look or grades, I have dubbed 2010 as none other than

The Year of Primary Sources

I have decided that I will dedicate myself more to the primary texts and less to the secondary commentaries of those texts. Although incredibly useful, secondary texts can often be crutches used by the academic. Taken at face value, their quotations and discussions of the subjects they study can be only of so much use. Additionally, taking a document and really exploring the voice and tone of the writer, the particular nuance of the time and style, can add wonders to an understanding of the piece as a product of its sociopolitical context.

Primary sources, in effect, are essential for depth in academic study. I feel sometimes, however, that more time is spent reading the secondary literature. Most of my books, purchased from undergrad up to now, have been secondary. And out of the few that have been primary sources, most have come from a history class on modern Latin America. The amount of primary texts related to religion have been minimal.

I believe, however, that the best way to teach is via a combination of primary and secondary readings. A short chapter of a relevant piece by a philosopher mentioned in a secondary reading for instance, or the use of a primary source reader, can be useful to any study. This year, therefore, I will dedicate myself to finding and reading as many primary sources as possible. In addition to those that I encounter in my classes, however, I have made a list of five influential pieces that I wish to consume through the year. They are random in topic but have all the same thing in common: they have been spoken about so much, cited incessantly both in conversation and writings, that I can't stand the thought of remaining ignorant of them anymore. They are my new year's resolutions.

1. On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

Wow. How many times have I talked about Darwin, about his works, and about this work of his! It's almost shameful of me to not have read this piece. And I even have the opportunity of having the whole work read to me by Dr. Richard Dawkins. A Christmas present from last year, this book-on-CD has been sitting on my shelf collecting dust. It is now on my iPod ready to be listened to on a long drive or workout!

2. The Divine Comedy by Dante

The levels of hell, the tortures therein, the inanities of purgatory, and the redemption of heaven, all imbued with the literary style of Dante like no other, are popular images for both popular and academic writing. But have I even glanced at it? Well, there was a well-meant attempt to begin the piece in the spring of 2009, but it was put to the side when school began. Let's see if I can get through it this year...

3. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn

From what I remember of my Philosophy of Science class, this book shook the understanding of the scientific world as we knew it. Even our use of "paradigm" was begotten in this work. A short piece with profound effects, intellectual ripples that continue to extend from the point of impact in the sea of knowledge, this will be a wonderful return to my work on the philosophy of science.

4. Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume

The work which bore Hume's questioning of both God's omniscience and omnipotence via the problem of suffering, this piece has come up time and again in all sorts of pieces. And plus, it's always good to have a solid philosopher in your mind. Wittgenstein, however, is too dense and intolerable to be of any use. Maybe he will be my only primary source for 2011. We shall see.

5. Anything by Baruch Spinoza

Ever since my Science and Religion class my junior year of undergrad, I have been fascinated by this Jewish thinker. His works of pantheism, of nature and God in collusion, will be included in my readings this year. Who God is, how we know it, and where we find God: questions that Spinoza tackles. I think, though, that I will just take up a Spinoza reader with a lot of his works and will plunder it for what it's worth.

With all of that, however, I entreat any reader of this blog to offer up a primary source that I should consider for the new year! Is there an area that I have completely missed? Is there somebody that is particularly important for my studies or for right now historically? Drop a comment and let me know! Onwards and upwards to the Year of Primary Sources.

Homerian Hermeneutics

2009-12-27T16:15:00.001-08:00

"I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman!" - Homer Simpson

A recent article in the New York Times, titled "Vatican Paper Says 'The Simpsons' are Okely Dokely," reports how L'osservatore Romano praised the show on its 20th anniversary, citing both it's "philosophical leanings as well as its stinging and often irreverent take on religion." This took me incredibly by surprise, that the Vatican would praise irreverence, but it seems to be quite appropriate for The Simpsons.

I co-taught a course while at Duke titled, "South Park, Religion, and Satire." It was a once-a-week class that met for two hours. We would watch an episode of South Park, King of the Hill, The Simpsons, or Family Guy, and then discuss the role of religion and satire in the production. It was a fun course to put together and execute, but it was even more enlightening to see the amount of nuance and particularities that go into these productions of religious satire. Whether it is Homer Simpson donning a head of Ganesha or Hank Hill attending a new mega church in his city, these shows are instrumental in both presenting and shaping popular portrayals of religion. These shows also bear considerable pedagogical use, providing a wonderful platform for which to test and discuss the inaccuracies in depiction or severity of message in the shows.

The more I study the interaction of media and religion, the more transfixed I become by the power that media has in the construction of the sacred. The study of satire in religious media alone could be a dissertation topic in itself (maybe a possible future for me? Hum...), possibly one that discusses a certain "Simpsonian theology" cited by the New York Times article above. I praise the Vatican, however, for having a sense of humor in accepting and praising The Simpsons. I look forward to what more The Simpsons have to offer, both on and off the topic of religion.

Is the "New Humanism" a Sociological Necessity?

2009-12-07T12:21:00.000-08:00

I was sitting in the pub the other night when a classmate approached our group. He had just gotten out of the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy's Humanist Holiday Party (wow, try and say that five times fast) and was stopping by to say hello. When asked about how the event went, he responded quite flippantly and said "well, they didn't succeed in converting me, that's for sure." I countered that I did not believe that that was their purpose, but rather that they had just put on an event for community building. What he said next, however, was quite provocative: "Have you met them? Of all the religious groups on campus, the Humanists are the most proselytizing."

I have attended events connected with the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy that have made me consider the role of a non-religious community. Greg Epstein is fond of viewing Humanism as one of many religious options, another way of being "good without God". The New Humanism is, in effect, a response to the New Atheism, the anti-theist movement characterized by the writings of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Instead of rejecting religion, the New Humanism works alongside it.

I find the New Humanism fascinating, however, because of its apparent attempt to include itself on "religious" ground. Epstein is not trying to create an opposition; he attempt is more alongside cooperation. His interviews and appearances are mainly filled with this kind of rhetoric: appeals to the effect that Humanism can provide the same kinds of opportunities and, more importantly, results as religion.

Is the New Humanism, therefore, a kind of sociological necessity? There is a wide amount of literature on religious switching in sociology today that attempts to find the causal parameters for the switching of denominations. Underneath every publication, however, is the understanding that there is something there to switch into. Religious switching implies a minimum of two participants. But disaffiliation, however, is a switch into nothing. It is something altogether different, as some academics have pointed out.

Is the New Humanism, therefore, filling a niche? Is it providing the consistency of religion with the absence of God to those non-religious members (which a recent study by the Institute for the Study of Secularization in Society and Culture have determined is 22% composed of 18-29 year olds) who might still seek to fulfill a niche in their lives? Is it "evangelical" because it seeks to let others know that this option, a good without god option, is available?

Side Hug it Up

2009-11-27T07:26:00.001-08:00

For a few weeks now, I've been consistently reminded of my sinful ways. You see, I'm a hugger. I give big bear hugs. But apparently, I have been doing it all wrong.

The Christian Side Hug (CSH as it is called) is apparently the way to go. Avoiding awkward or sinful crotch contact, or possibly even connection with another's chestal region, the CSH allows for wholesome hugging without the fear of error. It's a big hit at Christian retreats and events; demonstrations of the CSH are often part of opening ice breakers and rule wrap-ups.

As always, however, I am fascinated by the use of media by religion in getting the message out to the public. But does hardcore rap commingle nicely with the CSH?

Please enjoy this rap rendition of the Christian Side Hug.

Who is a Jew? The UK Supreme Court Will Decide.

2009-11-10T18:37:00.000-08:00

The New York Times had a great article a few days ago on November 7, 2009, titled "Who is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question". There is a case before the newly minted Supreme Court in the UK facing the standards used by one Jewish school in admitting students. Here's the issue:

A twelve-year-old boy applied to JFS (Jew's Free School), a pretty prestigious school, as the son of a Jewish father and a Jewish convert mother. He was rejected, however, because he did not fit the protocol of "Jewish" based on Jonathan Sacks' orthodox guidelines because his mother converted to a progressive branch of Judaism. The family sued on the basis of discrimination and lost their first case. The ruling was overturned by a Court of Appeal this past summer and now sits before the Supreme Court awaiting judgment.

Basically, the issue hinges on what it means to be a Jew: is it culture, or faith? And if it's faith, who can call the shots, especially when federal bucks are being used to fund the school? The result of this Supreme Court ruling will have massive repercussions for all faiths represented in the UK. Can a person just claim to be Catholic by baptism alone, or do further sacraments need to be invoked? What about active church-going but no baptism? Or a Muslim that does not pray five times a day but keeps to all the dietary laws and holiness codes.

With this move, the UK has just found itself in the thickly layered mess of religion and public life. Instead of an absolute separation of church and state like in the United States (there is sarcasm here), the UK took the approach of encouraging religious education and the funding of religious institutions. Students can and do take courses in theology or can choose to go to an Islamic institution that is funded with tax dollars.

I believe that the UK now finds itself in an incredibly tenuous decision. With its brand new Supreme Court, the nation will have to determine the stance that it will take on future questions of admissions policies and requirements. Keep your eyes on this case as it is, I believe, of massive importance for future takes of religion and public life in the UK.

Christian Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll

2009-11-09T16:49:00.000-08:00

In studying religion and media, I have become amazed at the ingenuity that religious groups have in using different types of media. Beginning with radio decades ago, media has become an integral part of the process of evangelism in America. Many sociologists view this as a process of sheer economics: there are spiritually hungry individuals who are presented with a tremendous variety of options in the religious marketplace. (An amazing discussion of this economically-driven theory of the sociology of religion can be found in Marla Einstein's Brands of Faith [New York: Routledge, 2008]) Vying for space in that religious marketplace, religious institutions must therefore compete by using the best, the greatest, the loudest, and the latest. This is why we see success with megachurches, why televangelists bring in the big bucks, and why Rick Warren led the nation in prayer at Barack Obama's inauguration.

When it comes to media, conservative evangelicals know how to get a message out. Gone are the days of evangelicals being portrayed as gun-toting, overall-wearing, ignorant fundamentalists. They wear the latest fashion, have learned the latest lingo of teens and young adults, have studied the things that every age group struggles with, and have remained on top of the vast array of technological advances in media (with all the money in the world to put it to use). "If today's thriving Christian cultural products industry illustrates anything, it is that evangelicals continue to spread their messages using 'the newest thing,' be it film, video, or the Web" (Hendershot, 6). Their ability to adapt, nay, to evolve with popular (read: secular) culture has left a permeable boundary between the sacred and the profane, the religious and the non, a permeability that has left repercussions to both the secular and religious realms.

All this media has also, however, left an indelible influence in how young people today view issues of sexuality, identity, and gender roles. For class, we were assigned to read Revolve and Refuel, the names of the latest New Testament "Biblezines". These publications are New Testaments that have been translated into colloquial language for teens, the former being for girls and the latter for boys. With passages from Psalms in text language, quizzes that girls can take to determine their personality, and even "Goodbook" profile screenshots (as opposed to Facebook profiles), these publications are meant to blend into a students backpack alongside issues of Vogue, People, or Skateboarding Magazine. Thomas Nelson also publishes other age-appropriate versions of the New Testament such as Magnify (for children), Align (for men), and Becoming (for women).

In this post, however, I would like to explore a bit of the gender dichotomies that Revolve and Refuel perpetuate within their pages. As gendered publications, these Biblezines serve as a window into what, exactly, evangelicals see as the target of their messages. They both mirror and shape the audience to which they aim: they mirror it by using language and styles that are attractive to the audience while at the same time shaping the reader into the gendered portrayal that they give.

Revolve is unfortunately filled with posts and references to good looks, eating habits, and perception. Again, this may be a mirror of the audience (teen girls often struggle with their looks), but it can also be damaging. On page 20, the writers lay it out bluntly: "Like it or not, our dress can speak volumes about us". This was then followed by an article on throwing out clothes and choosing items that are more tasteful and hip. "Fashion 4-1-1" is a recurring post that focuses on a girl's dress, as well as a "Style Solutions" side bar. Articles like "Supersize your self-control" (on how much and what to eat) or "What is beauty" (emphasizing that beauty is just what God sees) stand within pages of each other, offering contradictory and confusing messages for an already burdened reader. Focus on your style, but don't worry about it too much because it's inside what matters; smile a lot and show your Christianity with your looks, but stop "putting on tons of makeup, having your nails done, tanning and anything else surrounding the idea of obsessing over your self-image" (Revolve, 186).

Boys, on the other hand, are presented as brutes. They are sex-hungry, a bit dense, and easy to please with video games, music, skateboards, or television. From the beginning, Refuel assures the reader that "as a male, you're hardwired to be hot-blooded. You may be as mild-mannered as Clark Kent, yet anger is always boiling just under the surface" (Refuel, 30). How reassuring. The rest of the publication reminds the reader to calm this anger and frustration, instead using it to power a "radical faith" or to "fight the fight". Abrasive terminology coupled with the assumption of males as short-tempered dots the whole piece. In one part, the publication asks "What is your first reaction when someone does you wrong? For most guys, it's the thought of retaliation, payback, or revenge" (Refuel, 64).

So in the end, what is a reader supposed to do with all of this? Similar to how "prochastity teen media makes ignoring sex impossible," publications like Revolve make body issues difficult to forget! (Hendershot, 99) Young men, conversely, seem to be told that their rough-and-tough solutions to things are natural. Even though they are taught to repress those carnal emotions, young men are grown to understand their anger as being the common denominator.

I question, then, just how effective media like these publications are for evangelical teens. when teens begin questioning their sexuality and faith, as they inevitably do, how successful will evangelical media be in deterring their desires? Indeed, how effective are even the cited Biblical references? Hendershot does mention how "the rule book can backfire when teens study it and recognize the complicated or contradictory dimensions of the textual interpretations that adults put forth as straightforward and unquestionable, or when they notice the differences between isolated Scripture and the same Scripture in its context" (Hendershot, 102). How, then, do teens view publications like those presented by Hendershot? How is the audience, in this case, responding to the conservative messages? And how much damage is being done in the process? As a mirror and constructor of the world, how are publications like Revolve and Refuel furthering the dangers of Pandora's box that (as they see it) the secular world has already opened?

Creation in Twitter

2009-10-29T19:40:00.000-07:00

I apologize for not posting recently. Apparently it's a bad mix to put mid-terms, the Head of the Charles, and a visit from friends into a week's time and mix it all with a good dose of homework on top. I will be back on schedule after my final midterm is due on Wednesday. I plan on posting this coming week.

In the meantime, please enjoy this website that details the creation myth from Genesis in Tweet form.

Cheers.

Unfortunate Linguistics

2009-10-14T16:55:00.000-07:00

Adam Frank's recent article on Science and Religion Today, titled "Where Do Facts Live?", touches on the issues of "facts" in science and our increasing dependence upon these "facts". Frank calls it a "crutch" at one point in the article: "In that vein I wonder how much we lean on the certainty we think science gives us as a crutch, a replacement, for the certainty which is now more difficult to maintain through traditional religion." The piece, essentially, is an outspoken thought process of Frank where he ambles through our need for facts and the shaky origin of the facts that we so desire. For Frank, science is about creativity, about upending "our most cherished beliefs." He is trying to paint a contradictory image of science from the one that is prevalent in the public's eye; instead of focusing on the constancy of science, he is choosing to show the fluidity of it.

But there is a danger in all of this, and it has to do with language.

A couple of weeks ago, I was on Finnerman's Forum, a talk radio show here in Boston on WRKO. On the show, one caller brought up the issue of faith, about how scientists have a faith in their theories similar to that of religious faith. Arguments like these, however, only muddle issues rather than enlighten them. A hijacking of the word "faith" both denigrates religion and misrepresents science. Scientists believe that their models are true representations of reality, but I would not go so far as to say that scientists believe they know the "truth". Words like "theory" or "model" have a powerful epistemological weight in science; in colloquial language, a "theory" is transitory and ephemeral, merely the thought of the day. A "model" is just something on paper that can be drawn to fit a situation.

I bring this up because early on in Frank's piece, he states, "Traditional religious life also has its 'facts,' though in this domain the certainties are 'derived' from scripture. The hallmark of popular notions (and practice) of religious life is a certainty in these facts of a 'spiritual' universe." To use the terms in quotations above, even though he qualifies them with quotations, is in my opinion an unfair misrepresentation of the language. It is a problem that many writers of science and religion fall in to, one that must be recognized as a possible pitfall for writing in this area.

Language is incredibly important to pay attention to in writings on science and religion. Frank's piece is clearly an accommodationist one ("For me, the real radical promise of science is not its certainty but its constant creativity, its demand that we be willing, forever, to upend our most cherished beliefs. There have been many philosophies [and some religions] that emphasized the point that life is flux. Is this a place to ground our groundlessness?") that draws a binary that is historically inaccurate ("As a practicing scientist, I am much enamored with the potential to overthrow existing theories (and their interpretation of facts) in ongoing empirically based investigations. This is something that is rarely built into the structure of a religious institution.")

This is just something that has been on my mind with recent science and religion readings. Take care with your "theories" and have fun with your "myths".

Introducing Ardipithecus ramidus

2009-10-03T16:14:00.000-07:00

Today is Christmas. After fifteen years, Tim White has finally published his findings on Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominin fossil specimen that dates to some 4.4 million years ago. In a time period roughly 2 million years before the development of stone tools (the presence of which was supposed to indicate the beginning of the Homo lineage), this specimen has been secretly in the works for this whole time. And when I say secretly, I literally mean secretly.

The world of Biological Anthropology has a kind of soap opera flavor to it. The alliances, the backstabbing, and the incredible egos all come together to give a field of science that is as much fun to study as the subject matter. I remember hearing about Ardipithecus in my first summer field excursion in South Africa. We talked about the find, about its importance and placement on the lineage leading to Homo and then were told about how Tim White was sitting on these specimens for as long as he could. I even remember hearing about how chances are that he had nothing but wanted to keep his name in the game by keeping it all out of the official science eye.

But it has now come. The cover of Science magazine has a beautiful picture of the collection. Several scientists wrote analyses of different aspects of the specimen, which gives it even more of a qualitative punch. Indeed, all of the articles on Ardipithecus comprise the main bulk of the current Science publication.

What an amazing find and an amazing publication that was long awaited. A wonderful overview of it all by Carl Zimmer can be found here. It's not too science-heavy, so don't be afraid.

Richard Dawkins on the Colbert Report

2009-10-01T18:07:00.000-07:00

Colbert grills Dawkins in a wonderfully comedic clip.

Madonna of 115th Street 24 Years Later

2009-09-29T19:41:00.000-07:00

While on a visit to New York City last weekend, I took a pilgrimage to the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Roman Catholic Church: site of the famous Harlem festa that was detailed in Robert Orsi's Madonna of 115th Street. A video of the last procession can be found here.

After having read Orsi's book twice, I kind of approached the church with a false sense of expectation. I somehow imagined that there would be Italian mothers walking down the street in preparation for a festa, that there would be Italians hanging out the windows yelling messages to their kids running down the street, or that there would be a packed procession leading up to the church. I don't know, at least something Italian. Maybe an issue of a domus or of gender power struggle? Anything?

[sigh] Instead, I encountered a very quiet street dotted with two or three pedestrians. Luckily, it was a brilliant Saturday morning, the sky cloudless and the air crisp. The church structure welcomed me as a beautiful anomaly in East Harlem. Amongst the stoops, the apartments, and the street vendors lies this dominating facade of the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Catholic Church. The color of the stone, a gray-white, shines in stark contrast to the surrounding brick and brown colors. And on a beautiful day like the one on which I visited, the church seems to radiate a brightness.

To actually get inside the Church, however, I had to go around the corner to 116th street. The front doors open for services on the weekend, but the parish is accessed through this back entrance on other days of the week. It lies right next to the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Convent.

Walking in this entrance, however, one is immediately reminded of the location of this parish in East Harlem. Fire escapes, windows of apartments, and air-conditioning units flaunt the sides and back of the church space. The steeple from the front of the church can be seen in the top right of this picture. The blue canopy on the bottom right is the entrance. On the edge it states: "Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Shrine".

And finally, the altar and Madonna. The Italian immigrants in the late 19th century worked so hard to have this shrine built for nostra mama. The altar, as you can see, is intricately decorated in classic Italian aesthetics. As my tour guide (possible priest of the parish) kept telling me, the parish has classic Italian architecture and decoration.

And here is nostra mama. Not the most impressive of objects in the church, I must admit that I was a bit taken back by how...um...simple the statue is. It looks like a plastic doll, something that has obvious importance due to the manner in which it was dressed but at the same time something that looks as though it was easy to mass-produce. I asked whether she is taken down for the festa anymore, and my informant told me that they only do it for special occasions. She was taken down this last festa because it was the 125th anniversary of the shrine.

For me, the canopy above the altar was much more impressive.

Again, the architecture of the church was classic Italian: three naves, stained glass, all the mysteries of the rosary were painted on the ceiling, etc. The current members are more Haitian than Italian, according to my informant.

Some statues of saints. All the saints presented among the church had clear roots to Italy. The man on the left is Vincent Pallotti, the founder of the movement that bears his name.

A finishing reminder of the new image of East Harlem. No more the Italian Harlem of Orsi's days, it is now comprised mainly of Puerto Rican and Haitian immigrants.

Walking the streets of East Harlem was a nostalgic experience, one that was a bit odd for me to explain. By reading Orsi's book, it is not easy to remain unconnected from his subjects and their lives. It is a book that gives a rich taste of the life and time; you can almost smell the tomato sauce in the air. Arriving to the shrine was both wonderful and surreal, an experience that made me shake my head at my naive expectations of Italian grandeur.

I wonder what Orsi's book would look like today? The man who walked me through the shrine had heard of the book but had never read nor seen it. It's amazing to think that Orsi's book remains as historical tome that bears very little resemblance to the present. In his second introduction, Orsi details how difficult it was for him to defend studying "history" that merely went back to the late 1880s and spanned close to his lifetime. And yet, 25 years later, the currents of time have already washed away many of the traces of the life and times from Orsi's book.

Could a new book be written of lived religion at Mt. Carmel? Probably. Would it be as interesting as Orsi's first? Who knows. What is important is the fact that the work of lived religion is so ephemeral, so fleeting. It comes, arrives, lives, and then often dies. It disappears, it changes, and it moves on. Is this a defense or criticism of lived religion? It's up to you.

Science and Religion Article - Wall Street Journal

2009-09-23T18:29:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal had a very great article, "Man vs. God," on September 12, 2009. Was sent to me by a very good friend. The same question was asked to Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins: "Where does evolution leave God?" Their answers are thought-provoking. I'm a bit surprised about Richard Dawkins' constant appeal to alien life or other planetary life. It's one of his weakest arguments, in my opinion, whenever he speaks about the power of natural selection. Makes him sound much more like a science fiction writer than a scientist. But he seems to like it for some reason.

Having Babies for Jesus

2009-09-19T13:48:00.000-07:00

Going to school for nine years in a fundamentalist Southern Baptist school has had its effects on me (oy vey), but I have to shake my head at the irony in headlines like this one from MSNBC: "Teen birth rates highest in most religious states". I remember those days, meeting in the chapel every Thursday for a good ol' fashioned Gospel hour, having the chaplain give a comedic theological sermon, there might have been a Christian rock song or two performed by students and/or faculty...and then the sex talks. About saving yourself for Christ or marriage (depending upon what happens to you in your life). The lies about contraception and its failures. The pounds of guilt piled onto your chest if you ever so much as look at another individual with lust in your mind.

And then there's the report that I came across the other day that talks about a study comparing religiosity (from the 2007 Pew Survey) to teen pregnancy (from the CDC) which "found a strong correlation between statewide conservative religiousness and statewide teen birth rate even when they accounted for income and abortion rates." So in more liberal states, teens are more likely to get abortions and thus have a lower chance of having teen pregnancies, but even when the rate of abortions are controlled, more conservative states still reign supreme.

At the top of the list was Mississippi: number one for most crazy fundamentalist AND number one for teen pregnancy. Texas came in a good ol' third place. In fact, nine of the top thirteen states are southern states where the "American values" and "American religion" is most prominently preached. The three on the bottom of the list are Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire: no surprise there.

Although there is much more to consider (like ethnicity, backgrounds, income levels, etc), these findings remain indicative of what might be wrong with conservative teaching on sexuality. Abstinence only programs were heavily funded by the Bush administration and was heavily criticized by scientific community (really great article by the Union of Concerned Scientists). Emphasis on abstinence alone leaves many young men and women ignorant of what to do if/when sexual activity comes up (which it often inevitably does). Sex education is important and mismanaged in the conservative religious circle. I remember being told that a wet dream was kind of like peeing your bed.

Yeah.

Ah blessed irony. These are the same states that try to block an HPV vaccine because they believe it will contribute to teen sex. And yet they continue to chug along, kidnapping the Bible for their pursuits of laying on guilt and oppression.

Of particular note, however, is Utah, a state primarily composed of Mormons (6th on the list of religiosity in this study) and yet in the bottom half of the teen birth rates, ranking in at a respectable 34th place. A friend of mine pointed this out, but I do not have any answers for this result.

Word for the Day

2009-09-15T04:01:00.000-07:00

Termagant

noun: A quarrelsome or overbearing woman.

What is fascinating in this case is not necessarily the definition, but the etymology that is given:

Etymology: From Old French Tervagant. The term originates after an imaginary deity that Christians in medieval Europe erroneously believed was worshiped by Muslims. It was represented in morality plays as a violent, overbearing personage. Over time the term became generalized to apply to any brawling person, and eventually only to women.

It's the first time I hear of this belief of medieval Christians in an erroneous deity of Islam. Fascinating. But I wonder why it was eventually singled out for women? That's a pretty sad fact for history.

The Danger of the Intellect

2009-09-14T03:50:00.000-07:00

I have blogged previously about fear of the intellect in creationist propaganda. Today, I bring just another tidbit of an example.

Eric Hovind, son of the Creationist guru Kent Hovind, has his own Creationism platform where he tries to continue the work of his father. On his blog the other day, Eric began advertising a "new small group curriculum" called "Beginnings". He does not give details of the program, but it is very clearly a source of creation science evangelism, an attempt to bring others to Christ by affirming creationism.

What is interesting, however, is Eric's description of the curriculum's purpose and the intended audience. I will quote it at length below because I believe it deserves due analysis.

I am excited about our new small group curriculum "Beginnings". We know that when people come to Christ, it is because they surrender themselves to the God that made them. But many times one of the obstacles to people coming to Christ is their intellect, especially when it comes to the Creation VS Evolution debate. This small group curriculum is designed to strengthen the faith of believers through easy to understand apologetic arguments. It presents challenging facts that question the evolution world view and reveal much about our Creator. (underline mine)

Intellect as an obstacle to Christ. Easy to understand apologetic arguments that, at the same time, give challenging facts on evolution. Again, another instance where there is fear of education, of intellect. It is the same perpetuation of the 18th century Scottish Enlightenment: that is, common sense is supreme. Easy-to-understand arguments are wonderful because they require no depth of thought, no questioning. It levels the playing field intellectually, thus appealing to those individuals who would be most appealed by this content.

But why so much fear of the intellect?

While continuing my work on atheism, I have come across a couple citations that describe the correlation between religion and educational attainment:

Darnell, Alfred and Darren E. Sherkat. 1997. "The Impact of Protestant Fundamentalism on Educational Attainment." American Sociological Review 62:306-316.

Glass, Jennifer and Jerry Jacobs. 2005. "Childhood Religious Conservatism and Adult Attainment among Black and White Women." Social Forces 84:555-579.

Lehrer, Evelyn. 1999. "Religion as a Determinant of Educational Attainment: An Economic Perspective." Social Science Research 28:358-379.

It turns out that lower levels of education are correlated with more fundamentalist beliefs while higher levels of education are correlated with greater apostasy or unbelief. This fact is what spawns work like Eric Hovind's. Throughout the Creationist community there is a general fear of education, a reluctance for the secular university. These "ideas" and "books" that they make you read are merely secularist propaganda that leads you ultimately to unbelief. On the Answers in Genesis website homepage, there is even a link for "School: A Battleground?" In the photo, two schoolchildren hold each others' hand while walking to school. In the foreground is a tank and a trench with soldiers inside of it.

Yeah.

Although easy-to-understand arguments are nice, they are not complete. Men and women do not devote their entire lives to trying to understand something simple. The questions that haunt humanity cannot and will not be answered simply. And if the intellect often blocks one from reaching Christ, then maybe that's saying something.

Don't Park on my Sabbath

2009-09-06T07:37:00.001-07:00

Religious fundamentalism is everywhere. From the New York Times, there was an article the other day, "Religious-Secular Divide, Tugging at Israel’s Heart," that brings to light the disheartening fact of religious fundamentalism everywhere. Although I normally speak about fundy's in a tongue-in-cheek manner (especially when they try to substitute heaven-o for hello), this article does not bring any kind of humor to mind.

In Israel, the conflict that we most often hear about is that of east-west divide: between Jews and Palestinians. There is, however, a powerful internal divide: that between secular and Orthodox Jews. Ultra-orthodox Jews, known as haredim, take it upon themselves to uphold the ultra-strict Sabbath practices (or rather, lack of practices) and gender separation that their religious beliefs demand. Known as the "Sabbath wars" by local residents, the haredim take their cause very seriously, often with physical violence. Within the haredim are the Eda Haredit, the militantly orthodox of the haredim. Ultra-orthodox Jews make up a third of the population, and the Eda Haredit merely a small percentage of that third. But they are cranking out kids like crazy, resulting in a fast-growing community.

In this article, the issue was a parking lot. Yes, a parking lot. The Mayor opened up the parking lot under Arab management, making it free of charge, and thus incited a retaliation by the haredim because he was giving "public sanction for violating the Sabbath." They reacted to the pronouncement with riots, blocking access to the lot, and even spitting on police officers. Police had to use tear gas and stun grenades to disperse the groups.

It amazes me how the issue here is not religion, really, but rather their understanding of a public sanctioning of religious heresy. I believe that the mayor made a right decision handing off the management to an Arab agency, which does not have the religious strictures against working on the Sabbath. I do not see this, however, as a sanctioning but rather a kind of diplomatic move. The Israeli state is dying to increase revenue from tourism, and the creation of this parking lot was part of that effort. The increase in money and the arrival of outsiders could do wonders for the Israeli state.

But the ultra-orthodox Jews are only making it difficult for the state; they are actually hurting their nation and continuing to add fuel to the already blazing fire of international hatred for the Jewish State. Combined with the controversy over evictions and repossessions of homes in the West Bank for Israeli citizens, another matter that I find to be deeply disturbing, these actions strain further the already tense relationship that Israel has with its few allies.

There is religion, and then there is lunacy; there is faith, and then there is oppression. I believe that to uphold religious ideals is one thing, but to force those ideals is another. The actions of the Eda Haredit are not permissible, even if they believe that they live in an entirely Jewish State (which, of course, they do not). Words enact change while violence prolongs it; discussion brings about a solution while hurtful actions pushes it away.

Atheists in an Uphill Battle

2009-09-05T16:06:00.000-07:00

Graduate school has started. Although I still feel like an undergraduate, like a baby really, I have begun my first year of that part of my life where I read books on end, always conscious of that future life as an academic, while consuming vast amounts of coffee and Ramen noodles along the way. It is also the part of my life where I get to explore the topics that matter to me most. Since arriving on campus, I have continued my exploration of science/religion; I have also, however, continued my interest in the sociology of religion. Or, to be more precise, my interest in the sociology of a-religion.

That’s right folks. Atheists. Hiss, boo, kick and scream all you want. They are a fascinating group of people, a group that is relatively understudied in sociological research and (not-surprisingly) misunderstood by the general American populace. This is a group that is difficult to understand and pin down. In fact, merely calling atheists a “group” is unfair. Although secular associations do exist (Secular Student Alliance, The Humanist Society, etc*), there is no real community of atheists like there are communities of Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.

Which brings me to the topic of this article: Atheists suck. I don’t believe that, but the majority of Americans do. This post is about a 2006 article that I read by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann, all sociologists at the University of Minnesota. The article, “Atheists As ‘Other’: Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society,” brings to light a variety of thought-provoking and shocking results from data collected over the course of a few years. All data cited here come from this study.

Basically, it has been documented by researchers that the receptivity to religious pluralism in America has increased. The long-standing divisions among Protestants, Catholics, and Jews have slowly been eroding over time to the point that today religious pluralism is often admired as representative of the United States. But one interesting exception exists: atheists. If you combine both religious “nones” and religious “skeptics” into a group of “atheists”, you will find that together they make up a mere 7% of the population with only 1% of the population self-identifying as “atheist” or “agnostic”. Given such a small, amorphous group, it is surprising to learn that:

A 1999 Gallup poll showed that only 49% of Americans said they’d be ok with voting for a presidential candidate who is an atheist. Compare that to 59% who said they’d vote for a homosexual and over 90% who said they’d vote for a female, Jewish, or black candidate.

And this is just in the political dimension. The article's real focus, however, is on the divisions that Americans make in the public and private spheres. The way they conducted this survey is worth remarking.

- For indication of public receptivity, researchers asked survey respondents the following: “Now I want to read you a list of different groups of people who live in this country. For each one, please tell me how much you think people in this group agree with YOUR vision of American society – almost completely, mostly, somewhat, or not at all?”

- For indication of private receptivity, researchers asked: “People can feel differently about their children marrying people from various backgrounds. Suppose your son or daughter wanted to marry [a person in given category]. Would you approve of this choice, disapprove of it, or wouldn’t it make any difference at all one way or the other?”

- The categories of individuals included atheists, Muslims, homosexuals, conservative Christians, recent immigrants, Hispanics, Jews, Asian Americans, African Americans, and White Americans.

And what did they find? For both public AND private measures, atheists were at the very top of the list of problematic groups. “Americans are less accepting of atheists than of any of the other groups we asked about, and by a wide margin” (217). Appearing in second place were Muslims, a not surprising result considering the American response to Islam after 9/11. What is unexpected, however, is that “while rejection of Muslims may have spiked in post-9/11 America, rejection of atheists was higher” (230). And when the authors split up the responders into religious identity and involvement categories, they found that even 17% of nonreligious respondents thought that atheists do not share their vision of America and one in ten said they wouldn’t approve of their child marrying an atheist!

The researchers split up the respondent pool in a variety of ways: religious affiliation, race, gender, political affiliation, education, etc. Some of their findings are not surprising: “women, African Americans, and older people are more likely to reject atheists, while those with more education, and whose fathers had more education, are more accepting of them” (223); “Those who say that they value diversity in their community…and those who hold sympathetic views of African Americans are less likely to reject atheists” (223, italics theirs); and one’s own religious involvement has the most effect on the measure of acceptance.

But why this negative response to atheists? The authors found that respondents linked atheists with a variety of illegal actions, such as drug use and prostitution, materialism and elitism. Atheists were seen to be self-interested individualists, individuals with little regard for the common good. Atheists were a very powerful “other”, a group loaded with multiple identities and meanings. This “other” was a bucket into which all of societies evils were tossed: “they used the atheist as a symbolic figure to represent their fears about those trends in American life – increasing criminality, rampant self-interest, an unaccountable elite – that they believe undermine trust and a common sense of purpose” (228). And while America has become more accepting of religious diversity, this progression may actually be the path that has led to this rejection of atheists. In creating an in-group feeling of religiosity, we are together because we are religious deep down, America has marginalized nonbelievers. It is in this action of using religion as a basis for solidarity that increases the rift between believers and nonbelievers.

These results worry me. Are atheists the new communists? Will we soon be black-listing atheists? In a country where the importance of a particular religious adherence is weakening, we still find a strong rift between religion and a-religion. And the reason for this divide is often ambiguous at best. Will it come to the point that charity or aid is rejected if it comes from an atheist organization? Or will atheists merely have to subsume themselves into an even more amorphous body of "spiritualists": people who don't believe in the typical God but who believe in some kind of spirit that animates the universe.

To you atheists out there, good luck.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas Hartmann. 2006. "Atheists As 'Other': Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society." American Sociological Review 71: 211-234.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*There is actually a Humanist Chaplain here at Harvard Divinity School.

God and Suffering

2009-09-04T04:38:00.000-07:00

Reminds me of David Hume's argument: if the evil in the world is from the intention of the Deity, then he is not benevolent. If the evil is contrary to his intention, he is not omnipotent. He cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent (as most religions claim).

Gotta Love It

2009-09-02T19:06:00.000-07:00

I just had to post this.

Five Questions with a Creationist 1

2009-09-01T12:22:00.000-07:00

As part of my continuing interest to understand creationism in general and “scientific” creationism in particular, I have decided to try a (hopefully ongoing) segment of question and answer sessions with creationists that I know. Titled “Five Questions with a Creationist”, these posts will hopefully explore different areas of how creationism works “on the ground,” so to speak. It invites believers to give their account of their views on science, evolution, and Christianity, a view that may, at times, counter or conflict with the given academic understanding or portrayal of their beliefs.

This first post comes from a colleague and friend of mine. Graduating with a MEng 1^st Class Honours degree (the highest possible degree classification) in Electronics from Edinburgh University. He has graciously provided these answers via e-mail with permission to publish them on this blog. Any British spellings are entirely his fault!

1. There are many types of creationism that Christians ascribe to: believing the world was created in six, 24-hour days approximately 6,000 years ago; believing that each "day" of creation in Genesis was actually a geological epoch; believing that the split between the first and second verses of Genesis represent millions of geological years. Basically, there are many ways of going about it. What, exactly, is your creationism?

I tend towards the literal 6 24hr days approach, although I acknowledge that the word translated as "day" can also be translated as "period of time".

2. What denomination of Christianity are you a member of and how did you get around to hearing about/accepting creationism?

I am a fairly non-denominational Christian (preferring to focus on unity than dischord), although I would class my self as evangelical.

3. You did a big project for graduation from high school several years ago on the scientific basis of creationism. Could you tell me a bit about that?

I had recently started to look seriously at creationism, and when the opportunity for an A level research assignment came up, I thought it would be a great opportunity to find out more (and be a bit contraversial into the bargain). I used http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ as a basis (although it should be noted that the website was a lot different back then, and I freely acknowledge that a large proportion of what is printed there is complete tripe, but some bits warranted a second glance). The research paper was reasonably well received, and did get me an A grade, but was not as high as some others in the class!

4. Many theologians would contend that the Bible is not meant to be a historical document in the sense that it details exactly what occurred at a specific moment. Rather, they contend that the Bible is full of metaphor and rhetorical devices, all of which need to be interpreted within a sociocultural and historical perspective. How do you accomodate your view of the Bible as a historical/scientific text with the view of the Bible as a culturally specific document with its own time, audience, and writing style?

This is a somewhat leading question, as the implication is that all parts of the Bible must be treated the same. I believe all of the Bible is God's word, and that different parts speak in different ways and about different topics. It is in fact a collection of books, all with different human authors, each with their own literary style, and each written at a different time and for a different audience. Issues of context and intended audience are extremely important when looking at any book, and the Bible is no exception. However, I also believe that the Bible continues to offer guidance and meaning outside of the originally intended audience, and indeed that God speaks to his people through the Bible. It is clearly not a scientific text-book, nor is it intended to be, but that does not mean that it need not contain accurate descriptions of the way things occurred. For example, much of the Old Testament offers the best account of the history of the Jewish people we have. My main reason for believing the account of Creation as found in the Bible is that to me it makes as much (or as little) sense as the Big Bang and Evolution theories. That is to say that from the starting point of being a Christian and trusting in God's word, and when presented with a theory with (as I see it) many inconsistencies and unexplained points, it requires as much "faith" to believe the scientific account as to believe the account that God provides in Genesis. Of course I would never try to argue the truth of Christianity from Creationism, as to someone who is not already a Christian, it is obviously a ludicrous theory!

5. What is your opinion of the current scientific pursuits in evolutionary theory? Do you harbor any ill-will towards geologists, biologists, paleontologists, etc?

I would like to think I have no ill-will towards any group of people (apart from the French [joke]), and indeed scientific research and knowledge is a great thing, as it increases our understanding of the way God chose to make the world. The more I find out about the laws and activities that shape (and shaped) our world, the more amazing God appears. In the Bible it talks about the universe reflecting God's glory, and when I look up on a starry night, I see exactly what the Psalmist meant. Similarly when I find out about the intricacies of how various plants/animals/ecosystems operate, it leaves me in awe of their incredible Creator who designed them.

I would like to end by pointing out that I am not a hard-line Creationist. If the scientific theory ever fully convinces me, I will gladly accept it. In fact I think the most reasonable position is that of most of my Christian friends, who believe that God used the Big Bang and Evolution in order to create the world. Science and religion do not need to be opposed, as they are not trying to answer the same questions. My Creationism does not form a fundamental part of my faith, and is not a key component of the Gospel message. I choose to believe it because I am unconvinced by science's attempts to offer a full alternative, but I would not choose to argue with anyone on the point, nor to convince them of my view. Ultimately, in the grand scheme of Jesus dying for us so we can have "Life to the max" (John 10) it is totally irrelevant.

Podcast Recommendation

2009-08-29T06:30:00.000-07:00

I apologize for my hiatus in recent weeks, but I have been going through the stressful craziness involved in transitioning from England to Miami, and then subsequently to Boston. I arrived in Boston two days ago, orientation began yesterday, and classes start Wednesday. If I wasn't bald already, I'd be losing my hair.

But on a lighter note, I just wanted to bring to the attention of my readers a wonderful podcast that was begun by my old professor, Dr. Mark Goodacre. The "NT Pod" is a short (thank you!) podcast that explores different facets of New Testament scholarship. The latest podcast is "Jesus' Geneology in Luke's Gospel". I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

Banksy

2009-08-07T04:07:00.000-07:00

If you know me even a little bit, chances are that you know that I LOVE Banksy stuff. Banksy is a quasi-anonymous grafitti artist (or if you prefer to use the euphemism, a guerilla artist) who has become famous through his use of stencils to depict very controversial images. A best friend introduced Banksy to me when he found out that I was coming to London for a year. Although not as ubiquitous as I thought, Banksy can still be found on some random walls around London; the first one I saw was on Portobello Road. Most of his work, though, comes from his hometown of Bristol.

In any case, Banksy is a really incredible artist. His “Flower Chucker”, depicted above, is quite possibly my favorite of all his pieces. Some of his work is really shocking, even a bit surperfluous in shock (ie: without a particular message), but it is always imaginative and powerful. It is his cleverness that gets to me, his incredible use of imagination, humor, and irony.

It was therefore an amazingly wonderful opportunity to go see a full exhibition of Banksy work! (scroll right in the link to see pieces) I heard about it on Tuesday night, bought tickets for the bus to Bristol on Wednesday night, and left Thursday morning for a full days' worth of Banksy. Although the plan was a bit nuts and the exhibition out of the way, it was an incredible compilation, totally worth the 3 hours of bus, the 2 hours of waiting in the rain in line outside the museum, and the 3 hours of bus back to London. Oy vey.

Since Banksy attempts to keep an as-anonymous-as-possible profile, the exhibition was set up without any of the museum’s workers’ knowledge. Banksy worked through a private company to help coordinate the exhibition paperwork and then to set it up. The director of the Museum of Bristol, a tiny museum in the middle of his hometown and next to the University of Bristol, agreed to his odd requests. He sent all the museum staff to a training day out of the museum on day so that Banksy and the private company could do their thing. When they returned, the whole exhibition had been set up and was ready to go.

The line outside led from outside the door to the museum, down the street, and into a closed-off side street. It spun back and forth like a Disney ride queue, with signs appropriated every so often to let you know how long it would take you to reach the entrance from that point. A man peddled umbrellas to shield from the rain, an ice cream truck parked itself right in the middle of the line to refresh willing purchasers, and a random girl played show tunes on what was a kind of piano/flute combination instrument.

When we finally arrived to the exhibition 2 hours later, we were greeted by a one room exhibition of Banksy’s work. Everything from paintings, spray paintings, sketches of his ideas, pictures, etc, were on display. Once you exit, however, the exhibition was not finished. What Banksy did was put subtle pieces of his own work amongst the other pieces in the museum. So amongst the paintings there would be one of his. Amongst the stone tools would be a fake caveman drawing of two men trying to spear a shopping cart. Within the stalagmites was a dildo. Little things strewn across the whole museum meant that every person who went in would scour the whole place, possibly coming upon something of interest in the meantime. What a great idea. There was a Bristol native behind us in the queue who said something along the lines of “I remember when this Museum was empty and nobody went in it. Now I have to wait 2 hours just to get in!” Maybe this was a really good ploy to not only get people to the town and museum, but also a way for them to convince people to actually look around the exhibitions that they have on permanent display!

In any case, it was, I must say, one of the best exhibitions that I have ever been to. I think that there has never been a time when I’ve had so much fun in a museum. Banksy’s work is amazing; to have it all in one place was incredible. The most controversial piece that I saw is below. It is titled “How do you like your eggs?”

Some other pieces of religious slander were dotted in the exhibition. The following, a statue of Buddha with a neck brace and black eye, greets guests in the main hall of the museum.

This kind of work reminded me of the Glasgow exhibition in the Gallery of Modern Art where visitors were allowed to deface a Bible. The piece sparked such outrage that it was eventually put in a glass case to prevent further markings. It is pieces like the Banksy above and the piece in the Glasgow museum that spark an incredible reaction. Religion being slanderd in art, being criticized or ridiculed, is a taboo that artists either steer clear from or exploit. In a kind of "stick-it-to-the-man" style, these artists seem to try and stick it to the supreme man, the one up above. What has always been considered out of bounds is now taken over. Untouchable before, it is now the center of slander.

Banksy's religious works, and others like the Glasgow piece, always send chills up my spine. But should they really? As art, these pieces are meant to give a message; sure, they outrage the viewer, but is that outrage merely a path towards deep thought? Is it through the ruffling of feathers that Banksy is getting us to consider religion?

Creationism in the UK

2009-08-03T08:26:00.000-07:00

Although normally considered an American-born phenomenon, creationism has taken root overseas in the lovely little land of the United Kingdom. To the chagrin of many, creationist style literature and, yes, even schools have been popping up in areas around England. Just the other day, the Guardian, one of the leading newspapers, published an article titled, "Creationist exams comparable to international A-levels, says Naric," which details how the National Recognition Information Centre (Naric) "has ruled that the International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE) is comparable to courses such as international A-levels."

I must digress for a moment, however, to clarify some vocabulary for my non-English readers. To be completely honest, it took me months to figure out the English system for education so I apologize if it is a bit confusing. Secondary students have three levels of examination: their GCSE year (midway through high school, ending when the student is about 16 years old), their AS year and their A-level year. The AS and A level year material is often comparable to what an American student learns in his/her first year college course on the subject. In England, students concentrate on a few subjects by the time they take their final two years of study (AS and A-level years) which means that they often take 4 courses total at the AS-level and 3 at the A-level.

Naric, therefore, is an organization that "advises universities and employers on the rigour of lesser-known qualifications," like the ICCE mentioned above. Their role, therefore, is to endorse or disqualify teachin schemes so that universities can quickly and easily determine the legitimacy of a student's academic integrity.

Unfortunately, as this article has demonstrated, the Guardian has detailed how Naric has begun endorsing a curriculum that describes itself as "Christian fundamentalist" and teaches "that the Loch Ness monster 'appears to be a plesiosaur' and helps to disprove evolution."

[Pause for effect]

Yes, that is right. They use "Nessie", the nickname for the Loch Ness Monster, as scientific evidence used against evolutionary theory. More alarming is the following: "The textbooks also state that apartheid helped South Africa because segregated schools 'made it possible for each group to maintain and pass on their culture and heritage to their children.'" These kinds of statements are absolutely appalling; it is incredible to think that they are being legitimized by educational consultants like Naric.

The US saw its flurry of litigation on the topic of creationism education during the 1960s, some of which continues on today in the form of school board debates that remain within the state. The UK, however, has not had litigation in the same form. For one, the relative number of creationists in the UK is much smaller than in the US. Secondly, the socialist-style of education that the UK employs (requiring all students to take the end-of-year exams for each of the three levels of secondary education: GCSE, AS, and A-levels) means that there is a national board directing the choosing and creation of curriculum and assessments. Although in the US we have the AP exams, the SAT, SAT IIs, and the ACT, we do not really have anything comparable to the UK's system of assessing student progress.

But even with all of this, creationism still continues to slip into UK schools. There were even concerns that Tony Blair had given state funds to creationist schools (see the article in The Telegraph and The Independent). It is a shame that Naric has chosen to endorse a curriculum that includes both faulty science and antediluvian theology. I hope that this was merely a demonstration of their ignorance to the matter rather than their particular support for the material.

There is a danger with facts?

2009-07-30T13:44:00.000-07:00

Because of my interest in creationism and fundamentalist Christianity, I have put on my Google Reader the blog by Answer in Genesis' (AiG) Ken Ham. Although it pains me to read some of the material, being the recovering creationist that I am, I still find his words very interesting from an academic point of view.

That's why it astonished me recently to read a particular comment that Ken Ham put up on his blog today ("Churches for Sale"). At this point in the blog, he is discussing the musical talents of John Elliot, a pianist who attended the "Creation College" conference on creationism that was held last week. As Ken Ham says:

Here is some feedback we received concerning John Elliot’s
participation:

I just want to say that I thought John G. Elliott
added a wonderful
component to Creation College this past week. I stood at
the back a few times
and watched people and their actions and their
involvement. (The
danger in a conference such as this one, as we
all know, is the feeding of the
mind with facts). I think that
involving people’s affections and
actually bringing them into the worship of
the Creator that we are talking about
is a key element in creation ministry
and makes for a successful conference all
around. It causes people to go
away edified, up-lifted, and spiritually
satisfied. [emphasis mine]

Yikes.

Actually, let me rephrase that. Double yikes.

It always amazes me to read the ambiguous anti-intellectualism that appears in creationism. Adherents have the difficult position of rejecting academic knowledge while simultaneously attempting to use an academic platform for their promulgation of beliefs. Their grass-roots efforts, in effect, must combine both populist rhetoric and common sense logic with a kind of intellectualism of the people. Citing Popper and Kuhn, quantum physics and biochemistry, alongside statements emphasizing an intellectual conspiracy leads to dramatic and successful propaganda.

The statement above, however, makes me shudder. The danger, my friends, is the feeding of the minds with facts. I think of the religious right, about documentaries like Jesus Camp and For the Bible Tells Me So. I think about how so many people deny scientific evidence and Biblical higher criticism. And I think about how all of this spawns from the kind of people who believe that there is danger in facts.

2009-07-30T07:51:00.001-07:00

This picture made me laugh so hard.

Word for the Day

2009-07-30T04:06:00.000-07:00

Fideism

–noun: exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy.

Related forms: fideist, noun; fideistic, adjective

Deciding on a Language

2009-07-29T10:16:00.000-07:00

I'll probably post from time to time about how life is like as a graduate student. Although I have yet to begin my life as the dried-noodle-eating, library-dwelling, incredibly-poor seeker of knowledge, I am already beginning to realize that graduate life will be tough.

First on my list: what language should I pick to study?

Since I study science and religion, I do not really have a language to dive in to. Modern languages help, but up until now I have been a student of American Christianity. The fact that I am fluent in Spanish rarely comes up as useful, so I thought that I might take French in an effort to both obtain useful education in a language that I might use one day and to fulfill the mandatory 3-term study at HDS.

But now, I've thought about changing both my language AND my area of focus. I wanted to throw it past the readers of this blog, though, in an effort to garner some opinions.

The change: Arabic instead of French, and Creationism in Islam rather than in Christianity.

Firstly, I think Islam is fascinating and that Arabic is really cool. I would love to travel to the Middle East with some language preparation under my belt.

Secondly, I have been able to ascertain that the study of creationism in Islam (as part of Islamic fundamentalism) is a niche that is relatively unexplored. I've contacted Ronald Numbers, professor of the History of Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, about the subject and will be waiting anxiously to hear what resources he can recommend.

Thirdly, a lot of the focus in the history of science and the history of science and religion is on the 17th century Scientific Revolution. Most books on the subject might devote a sentence or two (possibly a footnote) to remind the reader that this was, in fact, a scientific RE-encounter of discoveries made in the Middle East, in particular. I think that studying the history of sci/Islam could be an interesting companion to my studies on sci/Christianity.

Am a bit afraid, to say the least, because my training in Islam is very minimal. Taking Arabic would essentially mean changing my "career path" (if I can even call it that at this infantile state) and tackling something totally new and unexplored.

But...that just makes it sound that much more exciting!

Any opinions?

Word for the Day

2009-07-28T03:44:00.000-07:00

Menticide

noun: The systematic undermining of a person's beliefs, attitudes, and values.

A Visit to the Dianetics and Scientology Exhibition Center, London

2009-07-27T11:33:00.000-07:00

Front facade of Church of Scientology, London center

Today, I ventured forth into London in pursuit of a tourist destination that most likely is not on most people's tourism agenda: the Church of Scientology London center. Stumbled upon it when I took a bus to the airport; saw the big sign, the impressive looking building, and made a mental note of it all. Placed in the middle of the historic center of London, the building is found about a stone's throw away from St. Paul's Cathedral, across the river from the Tate Modern Museum and Waterloo Station. It's a heck of a real estate, as any Londoner will tell you.

Entrance to the Church of Scientology, London center

Although I walked in thinking of only spending about 30 minutes checking the place out, I immediately found myself engrossed inside for about 3 hours. The building is beautiful on the inside, a full four floors of pristine tiles, glass walls, new tables, plasma screen televisions, shelves and shelves and shelves full of books by L. [Lafayette] Ron Hubbard. The second you walk in to the building, you are overcome by the beauty inside. White pillars with gilded arrangements on the walls, a beautiful reception desk decorated to look like marble, a staircase that pulls up on your left side, winding up all the floors, plush couches, and a massive, giant Scientology symbol.

The learning center on Scientology

We were approached by very cheery and kind Scientologists who invited us to see their learning center on Scientology. This large room was filled with about 10 plasma screen televisions, each of which have an interactive pad for interested learners to choose short documentaries on a variety of Scientology-related subjects. Charlie, our guide for the day, started us off with the one that showed an introduction to Scientology as a whole. The other televisions, however, had information on all sorts of topics, ranging from Scientology on human rights, Scientology around the world, the life and successes of L. Ron Hubbard, the Path to Happiness, etc.

I was amazed at it all. The impeccable furniture and systems, the amount of information that surrounded us (shelves full of Hubbard's publications) in all sorts of languages (Greek, Hindi, Arabic, English, Spanish, Italian, French, etc). Charlie came in to check on us after a bit, inviting us to a coffee and biscuits (cookies in British-speak), and offering to answer any questions that we may have. At this point, the tour and questions/answers followed.

Scientology symbol within the information center. The infinity symbol represents the reaching of infinity (last level of clarity in Scientology) and the triangle represents the three corners of healthy relationships, the ARC: Affinity, Reality and Communication.

When I taught my cults and sects class in St. Paul's, I spent one of our sessions discussing Scientology. Being the secular and cynical British teens that they are, they found Scientology to be off-the-wall, over-and-above, totally-and-utterly crazy. They had heard about space aliens, brainwashing, Tom Cruise, and eating placenta and had decided that anything and everything related to the cult was not worth the time of day. But at the end of the class, I asked the students what I asked them at the end of every session: why would anybody want to join this cult/sect?

With Scientology, they really had no clue. And, to be honest, neither did I. After researching and reading, I had a tough time figuring out what it was about Scientology that attracted people to join. After going to the center today, I realized that the most important thing that Scientology offers to its adherents is self-help. So some things that I noticed that would really appeal to faith-seeking individuals:

1. Scientology as a religion is all about helping yourself so that you can help others. It does not focus on a deity, about doing things for an impersonal or personal force, a figure that can or cannot be pictured. It is about the person who walks in the door, the one seeking happiness and fulfillment. Thus the person feels at the center of the faith. Community is ultimately built up by joining the various fulfilled individuals in focusing on larger goals.

2. It brings into play the psychology that Hubbard invented (a combination of psychoanalysis and Eastern thought) to help a person overcome their unhappiness, unsatisfaction, depression, or general unfulfillment. Based entirely on Hubbard's writings, the processes of dianetics, personality tests, auditing, and e-meter measurements are all meant to help a person become a fulfilled individual. It is meant to help the person bring out the repressed unconscious thoughts (engrams) so that the individual can move beyond them to fulfillment.

3. It is simple. It makes sense to any lay person willing to read the materials. As demonstrated on their section on the 21 steps to happiness, the approaches of Scientology are based on common sense approaches. There is no complex theology, little mystical language or paradoxes. Instead, everything is couched in psychological and esoteric language meant to evoke both scientific validity and personal practicality.

An e-meter, a device used to measure galvanic skin response so as to measure mental processes during auditings

4. It is incredibly organized and receptive. From the spick-and-span entrance to the perfectly organized libraries (complete with audiovisual facilities), the Scientology center was built to encourage learning. There is an exercise room (for purification) complete with sauna, auditing rooms, small theaters, conference rooms, study rooms, seminar rooms, cafe, leisure rooms, etc.

All in all, my experience at the center was positive. I did feel a bit creeped out at times, especially during the free personality test that was offered to me. Although encouraged to purchase some books to read, I did not feel pressured to give any money or information. They did not ask for e-mail addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers, etc, nor was I encouraged to do anything while I was there. I was impressed with how lovely the whole experience was.

There is still the understanding, however, that Scientology is something to be feared rather than accepted. It is illegal in France and Germany, the history of the church is full of precarious happenings (Operation Snow White, Hubbard's last decade of life, SeaOrg, charges against David Miscavige, etc), and their approaches are seen generally as brainwashing.

Although I had a positive experience at the Scientology center, I still feel reluctant to accept Scientology as a faith/religion and continue to feel hesitant to defend it as a faith. It is, when you get right down to it, a self-help program. What is dangerous, however, is that it is a self-help program that focuses on very sensitive areas of a person's existence: mind, happiness, fulfillment, etc. Hubbard was not a trained psychologist, and the members of the Church of Scientology who perform audits (kind of psycho-help) are not trained in any kind of counseling fields (whether it be psychology, social work, theology, etc).

Scientology is a program that appeals to the needy, those who are looking for mental health. And because of this, the Church of Scientology must be carefully watched and understood. The relative paucity of academic work surrounding the movement is both surprising and deplorable. Scientology continues to grow worldwide, gaining attention through both positive media (via celebrities) and negative opposition (like the very creepy anonymous "Message to Scientology"). Clouded in secrecy and negative press, the Church of Scientology faces tremendous hurdles to its progress and growth. I encourage, however, that the movement be examined through the academic lens as a sociological, cultural, and religious organization.

More Quirky Religion

2009-07-18T12:11:00.000-07:00

While thumbing through the wonderful Metro newspaper, one of the free papers that are handed out in the entrances to the London Underground, I found an article titled "'Allo, 'Allo, 'Allowe'en, what's all this?: Pagan police to get witchcraft holidays" (By Fred Attewill, July 17, 2009).

That's right. Members of the new "Pagan Police Association" will be getting time off of work on the faith's 8 days of festivities. Bosses have now recognized pagans as a minority group and have given them the rights that other religious minorities in England, such as Muslims and Hindus, receive. Although the National Secular Society is not too happy (calling the faith groups "dangerous"), the couple of people that this will benefit seem to be quite happy. No more working on Hallowe'en and on the summer solstice.

Although most people think that paganism is about jumping around naked in the woods, they could not be more wrong. More about meditation and passage reading, as well as traditional ceremonies that include ancestors and earth worship, this little-known faith has been misunderstood since medieval times. Most people would ascribe the pentacle (star within a circle) as being representative of Satanism, but as a colleague pointed out to me Satanism implies a belief in Christianity. Pagans are about the earth, not about Christianity. They are also not against Christianity either. They are just Pagans.

How about that for religious quirkiness?!

Quirky Religious Sightings

2009-07-16T13:13:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the lack of posts recently, but I'm traveling around Europe with my parents for a few weeks and will be away from the computer as a result. Paris and London with the 'rents. You've got to love it. And they are crashing with me in my flat, traveling on a budget like the recent college graduate that I am.

In the meantime, enjoy this quirky religious sighting. Was walking around Westminster Abbey yesterday (because I refused to pay the incredible 15 pounds entry fee that they charge) and found a couple of interesting statues in their front entrance. Can you guess who this bloke is?:

The guy in the middle? Do you recognize him? It's Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.! It was incredibly weird, but kind of humorous, to find a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr., above the main entrance of Westminster Abbey.

The Narrowing of "Science"

2009-07-08T04:35:00.000-07:00

As part of my GoogleReader, I follow the blog of Ken Ham, president of the creationist organization Answers in Genesis (AiG) and director of the Creation Museum in Kentucky. His posts usually contain defenses for creationism or denouncements of evolution, although at times he enjoys advertising the AiG publications or special visits to the Creation Museum. Every post ends with a devotion and a thank-you for praying. His blog also complements quite nicely with my reading of PZ Meyers' blog, Pharyngula, especially when Meyers rants against Ham and Ham responds. Always makes for some classic sci/rel reading.

In a recent post, titled "Admissions of an Evolutionist", Ham demonstrates one of the key arguments that Creationists use when confronting evolutionary theory: the fact that they do not see it as real "science". In the article, Ham starts off by quoting a post by a "blogger who attended the paleontology conference in Cincinnati recently and also visited our nearby Creation Museum with the group of secular scientists," who points out in his post a few of the difficulties with evolutionary theory. He calls it "counter intuitive" and "difficult to convince people". Ham jumps on this post as being secular support for the AiG platform of Creationism. At this point, Ham goes into the thesis of his post by stating:

"There is nothing that evolutionists can parade in front of all through television, radio, magazines, etc. that will prove once and for all these creationists are wrong and Darwin was right! NOTHING!

Now these same scientists could easily prove to all that magnesium has certain properties and reacts with acids in certain ways—because one can observe such properties and test them over and over again. And that is the point. One can illustrate natural selection and speciation—one can show bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics—but an evolutionist cannot show how one kind (usually at the family level of classification) of animal could change in to a totally different kind (speciation within a kind is not molecules to man evolution.)"

With this, Ham demonstrates clearly the approach that many Creationists take against evolutionary theory: the philosophical criticism. The approach, however, is variegated rather than universal; in one statement against evolution you might find all at once!

Firstly, In viewing science, the Biblical literalists often follow the Baconian philosophy of science (which, I may point out, is now defunct) which views science as a collection of facts prior to establishing a theory. When Darwin published his theory of natural selection, one of the biggest contentions he faced was philosophical not theological. Most of the scientists at the time viewed theory-construction as a kind of final step to the scientific puruit rather than a starting point. Darwin, however, began with his theory and continued collecting details to support it. Scientists at the time viewed this as a kind of cheap approach. Of course the details will match your theory, they would argue, because you are inherently identifying the facts that will only support your theory! Today, however, science progresses by means of theory construction and reconstruction. When the data comes in, the theory changes in order to model the new data that has been obtained. Anti-evolutionists, however, derail this as a kind of cheap science.

The second approach actually contradicts the first I just mentioned. Some Biblical literalists will take the current approach of science and use it to their advantage. Citing Kuhn's "paradigms" and the fact that the philosophy of science has morphed the field into a theory interpretation, Creationists often will cite that scientists must allow a kind of "scientific" creationism as a possible reality. As one commenter on Pharyngula stated:

"If you know science, and I'm hoping you do, you will know that science CANNOT prove what happened at the beginning of the earth (whenever it was). All both sides can do is look at the evidence and analyse it to see if it fits their theory. So far, I can't see how it disproves my belief in 6000 years, so my belief stays. You can insult my intelligence if you like (you probably do), but it doesn't change the facts about what science can and can't prove."

A third approach is the narrowing of "science" to what is done in the laboratory, as demonstrated above in Ham's blog post. You can see how things react in a laboratory, you can determine directly what is happening through visual observations or physical/chemical changes that can be measured, etc. But with evolutionary theory, no amount of "laboratory work" will, for them, lead to a confirmation that evolution takes place. In this way, the creationists narrow science to a mere pittance of what it actually is. The historical approach of evolutionary theory, which takes into consideration and uses a vast amount of "laboratory" sciences such as nuclear physics (for dating) and chemistry (composition of soils and rocks, etc), still does not meet the requirements.

Therefore, not only do Biblical literalists take over theology in their approaches, preferring an antedeluvian (no pun intended) and outdated theology, they also take over science to fit their own pursuits.

Secularization through Higher Criticism

2009-07-03T05:43:00.000-07:00

In reading about the creationists, I often come upon the fear that many of the faithful have towards higher criticism: a branch of literary analysis applied to Biblical studies that attempts to find the contextual information behind the written words. It is a process by which scholars determine the authenticity of an attested authorship, the date of writing, the audience of a work, etc. Ultimately, it treats the Bible as a literary document, one that is full of clues and metaphors that can give a richer understanding to the text itself.

Studying higher criticism can, however, lead to a new understanding of faith. As James McGrath of Butler University says in his blog, "Exploring our Matrix", there are a lot of things that ministers will not discuss in their congregation for fear of rebuttle or secularization. Take, for instance, the Synoptic Problem: there are disagreements, inconsistencies, and even moments of apparent plagiarism between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). They all attest to being witnessed accounts of Jesus' life and works, however there are moments where their anecdotes just don't match up. How do you reconcile that? Or how about the problem of the sources themselves: the fact that a lot of Paul's epistles probably were not written by Paul himself, or the fact that we do not have the original copies of the books of the New Testament but rather have copies of copies of copies of copies (each copy of which adds a certain margin of scribal errors and changes). How would that sit with faith?

There are, I must admit, many parts of religious studies that can be damaging to faith. I myself lost much of my theism when I began to formally study religion. I am not alone. Problems with historical interpretation, religious pluralism, morality of religion, etc: they all come into play when I sit back and question my faith. It is no wonder why Creationists so vehemently attack evolutionary theory: it is one more attack on the sanctity and truthfulness of the Bible. Their argument is simple. If one accepts that Genesis was "wrong" about creation, then what prevents people from saying that other parts of Scriptures are "wrong" as well? They abhor the "pick and choose" mentality of religious scholars or liberal ministers, how they say that "this part" is true but "that part" is not. For Creationists it is either hit or miss, all or nothing; there is no in-between, no context, no higher criticism.

This fear of higher criticism, however, is not limited to ultra-conservative Christians or Creationists. I remember back at university how I used to encourage people with extra blocks in their schedule to take a course in Religious Studies. What astounded me was how many theists chose not to take one because, as they said, they didn't want to lose their faith. They liked God, they said, and did not want to get in the habit of questioning too much. They've seen what that can lead to (in me and others) and they just don't like it.

Amazing isn't it? How secularization is tied in to a religious studies department! The fear was not in science, not in sociology, but in religious studies. Amazing. What does this say for the arguments of Creationists? Are they right? Are they wrong?

Word for the Day

2009-07-03T05:42:00.000-07:00

Agnotology

The study of deliberately created ignorance - such as the falsehoods about evolution that are spread by creationists.

US and God

2009-07-03T05:40:00.000-07:00

48

Percentage of Americans who think that religion will help answer the US's problems, the lowest proportion ever. Newsweek poll published in New Scientist, April 2009.

The Vatican Turns to the Skies

2009-07-01T16:14:00.001-07:00

The New York Times had a wonderful article by George Johnson on the 26th of June, 2009, about the Vatican's observatory in Mount Graham, Arizona.

"Fauré’s 'Requiem' is playing in the background, followed by the Kronos Quartet. Every so often the music is interrupted by an electromechanical arpeggio — like a jazz riff on a clarinet — as the motors guiding the telescope spin up and down. A night of galaxy gazing is about to begin at the Vatican’s observatory on Mount Graham.

'Got it. O.K., it’s happy,' says Christopher J. Corbally, the Jesuit priest who is vice director of the Vatican Observatory Research Group, as he sits in the control room making adjustments. The idea is not to watch for omens or angels but to do workmanlike astronomy that fights the perception that science and Catholicism necessarily conflict."

The article beautifully describes the Vatican's scientific interests in the stars. It is meant to be a refreshing article for those who have lost faith in the juxtaposition of science and religion. Seeing as how the Vatican is usually seen as the historical prime instigator in condemning heresy (Giordano Bruno burned at the stake for [allegedly] his Copernican beliefs, Galileo and his house arrest, and even pursuits today in stem cell research and in-vitro fertilization), this article quite nicely brings to light how much science the Vatican actually does. It also emphasizes how the science is separated from the religion:

"Dressed in blue jeans and a work shirt, he is not a man who wears his religion on his sleeve. No grace is offered before a quick casserole dinner in the observatory kitchen. In fact, the only sign that the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope is fundamentally different from the others on Mount Graham, the home of an international astronomical complex operated by the University of Arizona, is a dedication plaque outside the door.

'This new tower for studying the stars has been erected on this peaceful site,' it says in Latin. 'May whoever searches here night and day the far reaches of space use it joyfully with the help of God.' At that point, religion leaves off and science begins."

I would like to emphasize, however, that the Catholic Church has always been an incredibly scientific body. It has employed scientists for centuries now, both for the religious purposes of determining miraculous happenings AND for the purely scientific purposes of...well...science. Although this article is nice, it fails to mention the rich history the Vatican has with science.